Sitting of 23 March 1922

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill, Bead the Third time, and passed.
HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Highland Railway," presented by Mr. MUNRO; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-Morrow.
STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.
Address for Return showing the number of accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by vehicles in streets, roads, or public places during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1921 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 53, of Session 1921 (1)).—[Sir John Baird.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ORTHOPÆDIC HOSPITAL, SHEPHERD'S BUSH.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Minister of Pensions whether negotiations with the Hammersmith board of guardians has resulted in arrangements being made which will enable the Ministry of Pensions hospital for wounded soldiers, at Ducane Road, Shepherd's Bush, to be carried on as heretofore?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): My hon. Friend will be
    640
    glad to learn that the answer is in the affirmative.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Does that mean definitely that the hospital will not be removed to Roehampton?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That is so.

    NOTTS AND DERBY REGIMENT (PRIVATE S. H. SLACK).
    Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. S. H. Slack, of Calton Lees, near Bakewell, ex-private of the Notts and Derby Regiment, regimental No. 202,583, whose right hand is practically useless owing to a compound fracture sustained on military service, who served 4½ years during the War, and who has now had notice that his pension is to be reduced from 50 per cent. to 30 per cent.; and whether, under the circumstances, he will reconsider the decision which has been arrived at, looking to the fact that there is no chance of the disability becoming less, the hand being practically and permanently useless?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The award at the rate of 30 per cent. corresponds with the assessment of the medical board which examined this man on the 28th February; and if he is dissatisfied with his assessment he can appeal on that ground to a medical appeal board. It is clear that the reduced assessment represents an improvement in his condition, and I am glad to say that the medical report holds out hope of still further improvement.

  IRELAND.

    CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in the case of existing Irish civil servants who elect to continue to serve under the Free State Government, the Imperial Government will be the guarantor of their tenure of office, salaries, superannuation, and conditions generally; and whether the Civil Service Committee will be set up in accordance with Section 56 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I have been asked by the Colonial Secretary to answer this question. As I informed the hon. Member for Pontypool on the 13th instant, it is proposed to discuss this question with representatives of the Provisional Government prior to the establishment of the Free State. I regret that I cannot at the moment give a more definite answer to the hon. Member's question, but I can assure him that His Majesty's Government will not be unmindful of the interests of those members of the Civil Service to whom he refers.

    CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary how many lapsed subscribers to the Constabulary Force Fund are still alive; and if he will undertake that these men who ceased to subscribe through inability to pay will be considered when the above fund is under consideration on 31st instant, as most of these men could not pay on account of their small pensions?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of any cases in which subscribers to the Constabulary Force Fund have ceased to subscribe through inability to pay. The subscription of a pensioner is made by the deduction of 1 per cent. from his pension. The usual ground upon which a subscriber has this deduction discontinued is that he has survived until he has no dependants who could benefit from the fund. The man himself has no claim upon the fund which is designed to assist his dependants in the event of his death.

    LIAISON COMMISSIONS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the impartial Liaison Commissions, including British officers, proposed by him on 14th February last, which received the prompt and unqualified acceptance of the Northern Government, and with which Mr. Collins fully agreed, have been set up, and have operated satisfactorily on both sides of the boundary between Northern and Southern Ireland; and, if not, will he state the reasons?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second
    642
    and third parts, I regret to state that, owing to the intense bitterness of feeling which still prevails on the Border, the results which have attended the labours of these Commissions have not yet been satisfactory. I am at present in communication with the Provisional and Northern Governments on the subject.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House whether it is the case that those on the Northern side of the boundary are showing exemplary patience and self-restraint in the face of almost continuous provocation from the other side?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are there no British officers on this frontier who can be relied on to give impartial accounts in view of the conflict of the evidence?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is exactly what has been done. British officers were sent to the border and this question deals with them.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have any reports come in from them, and cannot they be given to the House?
    Mr. MARRIOTT: The right hon. Gentleman has ignored my question.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I certainly have not done so intentionally. The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question involving matters of fact and of opinion, and I must ask for notice of that.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of granting an amnesty to political prisoners in England—Irishmen and Irishwomen?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

    FREE STATE CONSTITUTION BILL.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the draft Bills embodying Constitutions for the Commonwealth of Australia and the Union of South Africa were brought from those Dominions and submitted by the Government for the consideration of Parliament, the same procedure will be followed in the case of the Constitution for the Irish Free State before His Majesty's Government either assents to or dissents from the terms of the draft Constitution?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not understand the comparison which the hon. and gallant Member suggests in his question. It is true that the Draft Bills embodying the Australian and South African Constitutions were submitted by the Government of the day for the consideration of Parliament, and exactly the same procedure will be followed in the case of the Irish Bill. Inasmuch, however, as the Australian and South African Bills were Government Bills, it cannot be suggested that they were submitted to Parliament before the Government had assented or dissented from the terms of the Constitutions which they embodied, nor would such a course be practicable in the present instance.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Were not these Bills, when they came before Parliament, modified by this Parliament in certain particulars?
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not the case that in the Union of South Africa Bill a modification was actually made as to control of natives on the Rand?

    FREE STATE (MILITARY DEFENCE FORCE).
    Captain FOXCROFTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what, having regard to the relative populations of Great Britain and Ireland, and to the existing military establishments in Great Britain, is the maximum number of the military defence force of the Irish Free State authorised by Clause 8 of the Treaty; what is the present number of the military defence force of the Irish Free State; what is the present number of armed volunteers and police respectively in Southern Ireland; and whether either armed volunteers and police, or both, are to be taken into account in estimating the maximum number of the military defence force permissible under Clause 8 of the Treaty?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Debate on the 8th instant, when this matter was fully discussed on the Report stage of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill, and to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Burton on the 16th instant. I regret that I am unable to add anything to these statements.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Can a man be a member of this Defence Force who is not in uniform?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am afraid I cannot answer that without notice.

    FRONTIER DISTURBANCES.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to sniping by Sinn Feiners on the Monaghan-Tyrone frontier, in the neighbourhood of Ballagh Bridge, which is making it impossible for local farmers on the Tyrone side to till their land or to tend their horses and cattle; whether this sniping has been located in houses within the Free State garrisoned by armed men, whose supplies of food and ammunition are observed to be replenished by women from outside; and, in view of the fact that the Government of Northern Ireland have no authority to cross their frontier to deal with these attacks, whether he proposes to order the demolition of these snipers' nests by artillery; or, if not, what other steps he proposes to take to protect life and property?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The question was not received until after the House opened, and therefore I cannot be expected to give a full reply to a long question involving matters of fact and opinion. I have sent for an answer to the question, and I hope that at some later time I shall be able to answer my hon. Friend.
    Mr. McNEILL: May I put the question on the adjournment of the House?
    Mr. J. JONES: Why should they have the adjournment every time they ask for it?
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer to the general question put, namely, whether, if these snipings go on in the Free State the Government intend to take action to put an end to it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I myself saw the question only when I reached the Chair, and I ought to have struck out the latter part of it. The question asked by the right hon. Baronet does not raise a special

    645
    matter appropriate to the occasion, but is a general question suitable for placing on the Paper.

  RUSSIA.

    GENERALS DENIKIN AND WRANGEL.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to reports in the Italian Press of the renewed activities of Generals Denikin and Wrangel in raising forces for attacks on Russia; whether he has yet definite information as to the truth or otherwise of these statements; and can he state the present whereabouts of these two generals?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I have not seen the reports referred to. They are not borne out by our own information. General Wrangel was recently at Belgrade, but was expected to leave for Sofia. General Denikin is understood to be living in Brussels.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand the Foreign Office has definite information that these activities have not been undertaken?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: According to our information that is so.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did the hon. Gentleman say he had not seen these allegations in the Press?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: In the Italian Press.
    Mr. G. BARNES: Are we in any way responsible, financially or otherwise, for the maintenance of the activities of either of these two generals?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Certainly not.

    SOVIET TROOPS.
    Mr. HANCOCK(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can give the House any information concerning reported mobilisation and massing of troops, and rumours of a new war, by the Soviet Government, and in view of our grant of money to feed starving Russians, could he represent to the Soviet
    646
    Government that by pursuing a policy of peace it would be promoting those friendly relationships, between their Government and ours, which we are anxious to see?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): Nothing is known of any intention on the part of the Soviet Government to embark on any new war. A slight increase of troops in the West of Russia is believed to have taken place since the beginning of the year. Reports have been received of the partial mobilisation of one class in the Western districts, but this, even if confirmed, would not necessarily signify a warlike measure, as this class is due to be called up in the spring.

    CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total amount already paid to this country by China in respect of the Boxer indemnity; what is the amount still owing; how much China has paid to France; how much is still owing; how much has been paid to other European countries; and how much is still owing to them?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for Sir R. Horne): The amount paid into the Exchequer, as shown in the Annual Finance Accounts for the years 1906–07 to 1919–20, amounts to £4,284,799 1s. In addition, £1,238,894 was paid in respect of British claims other than that of His Majesty's Government. The amount remaining to be paid by China is £11,186,547 12s. 8d. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the amounts paid by China to other countries in respect of the indemnity.

    PEDESTRIANS (PROTECTION).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take, whether by new legislation or otherwise, in order to protect pedestrians using country roads where there are no footpaths from those dangers against which he considers pedal cyclists are protected by carrying rear lights?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to reply to this question. I do not propose to take any steps in the matter, as I do not consider that the cases of a pedestrian and of a pedal cyclist are comparable.
    Mr. THOMSON: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the risks to pedestrians from motorists are quite as great as the risks to cyclists?
    Mr. NEAL: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman suggests that pedestrians should carry rear lights?
    Mr. THOMSON: Hear, hear.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    MOTOR DRIVER'S LICENCE (J. M. ROBERTSON).
    Mr. NAYLORasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that J. McDonald Robertson, late Army Service Corps, after three years' War service and retirement from the Army on a 30 per cent. pension, and after six weeks' training in motor driving under the Ministry of Labour, has been refused a driver's licence by the authorities at New Scotland Yard; is he aware that the reason given for that refusal was that Robertson was a man of colour, although a British subject, and resident in this country for 20 years; and will he reconsider this decision?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The Commissioner had already submitted this question to me, and after consultation with him I have decided that Robertson shall be given a licence, subject, of course, to the usual tests as to character, knowledge, and technical skill.

    OFFICE OF WORKS.
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow as representing the First Commissioner of Works whether, seeing that 340 non-service men and 554 women are employed in his Department, he will consider the substitution, where possible, of ex-service men who are being dismissed from other Departments and are qualified for the duties?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The numbers given are those employed as at 1st January, 1922. The numbers as at 1st March employed in a temporary capacity are 273 non-service men, and 527 women. Steps are being taken to substitute, where possible, ex-service for non-service men, provided candidates with the experience and standard of qualifications required can be obtained, but I should like to point out that the percentage of ex-service men already employed is high, namely, 80 per cent. Of the 527 women employés, seven are ex-service, 508 are typists, shorthand typists, charwomen, etc., engaged on work specially appropriate to women, four are retained owing to the non-availability of ex-service men possessing qualifications as comptometer operators, three are retained on compassionate grounds (two of these are about to leave), three are employed on work which will terminate shortly. The substitution of the remaining two will be undertaken as soon as possible.

    PHYSICAL FITNESS (R. G. LAIDLAW).
    Mr. FORDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the case of Mr. R. G. Laidlaw, who has been refused a pension because he is physically fit and who, though he has passed an examination, has been refused an appointment as officer of Customs and Excise by the Civil Service Commissioners on the ground that he is not physically fit; and how it is proposed that these divergent views should be reconciled without injury to a man who has served his country faithfully?
    Mr. YOUNG: I have no information as to whether Mr. Laidlaw has been refused a pension by the Ministry of Pensions, or, if so, for what reason. Any inquiry on that point should be addressed to that Department. As regards his rejection for appointment under the Board of Customs and Excise, I am informed that he passed a qualifying examination under the Reconstruction Scheme for the post of officer of Customs and Excise and became a selected candidate in January, 1921. He was then medically examined on behalf of the Civil Service Commissioners by two Edinburgh physicians who severally advised his rejection, and the same advice was given by the Commissioners' referee in London, to whom the evidence obtained was submitted. I understand that he served in

    649
    the Army from 1914 to January, 1919, when he was demobilised in medical category A1. The Civil Service Commissioners have no reason to suppose that the physical defect on account of which they were unable to admit him to the established Customs service two years after demobilisation was either due to or aggravated by his military service.

    CYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the impossibility of keeping burning on a windy night on a bumpy road even the best rear-light lamp on a pedal bicycle, he will further consider whether a good reflector would be a more effective method of protection to the cylists?
    Mr. NEAL: I have been asked to answer this question. I am afraid I can add nothing to the previous answers which I have given on this subject.

    WOMEN POLICE PATROLS.
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to disband the women police before the opinion of the House has been taken on the matter?
    Mr. SHORTT: As I have already explained, the disbandment will take place gradually, as from the 31st instant, as the engagements of the patrols expire. The matter can be raised if an opportunity occurs, but if the required savings are to be effected the process of disbandment must be commenced as soon as possible.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (MATRONS).
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Home Secretary how many police matrons there are in the Metropolitan police area; what is their pay; and whether any allowances are made to them for uniform, meals, or for any other purposes?
    Mr. SHORTT: There are 18 police matrons permanently attached to stations who receive a salary of £1 1s. a week, and six van matrons, who accompany female
    650
    prisoners to Holloway, two of whom are paid 18s. a week, while four, who are employed part-time, receive 10s. a week. At any station where there is no permanent matron, women are employed as and when required, and they are paid according to the period for which they are employed up to a maximum of 10s. for any one day. None of the matrons receives any other allowance.
    Mr. FOOT: Will the matrons here referred to be engaged to assist men police in bringing female prisoners from one part of the country to another?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes, women are always employed on that duty.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (SURGEONS).
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Home Secretary whether, for the convenience of all persons to whom the Workmen's Compensation Act applies, he will have the list of certifying surgeons and appointed surgeons, which was printed in 1914, corrected and brought up to date?
    Mr. SHORTT: A revised list is in course of preparation, and will be issued as soon as possible.

  KENYA COLONY.

    ARREST (THUKU).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the reasons for the arrest of Thuku, in Kenya Colony, and as to the circumstances which occurred in connection with that arrest?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): I have no information beyond what has been published. The Governor has promised a despatch, and when I have received it I will consider what further announcement can be made.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of asking the Governor what it was Thuku was advocating which brought him into trouble with the police?
    Mr. WOOD: We have asked the Governor for a very full report of the whole proceedings, and obviously that will include the reasons which led to the trouble.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH -BENTINCK: Will the hon. Gentleman consider as to appointing a Committee to inquire into the whole question of native unrest in Kenya?
    Mr. WOOD: I have no reason to think that that is necessary. The Noble Lord will be quite mistaken if he infers from this unfortunate episode that there is any native unrest in Kenya.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very serious unrest, and, moreover, well-grounded unrest, because no native can have a legal title to land in Kenya Colony?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was any damage done to the police or was it only the natives who suffered?
    Mr. WOOD: As far as my information goes, there were no casualties to Government employés. With regard to the question of the Noble Lord, I have no knowledge of the fact he alleges, and I strongly deprecate any suggestion that there is any such discontent as he suggests.

    LABOUR ORDINANCE.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the draft amending ordinance to the Forced Labour Ordinance issued by the Kenya Government in East Africa; and, if so, whether he will lay a copy of this draft upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. WOOD: The draft amending Ordinance has not yet been received, and the Governor's attention has been drawn to the matter by telegram.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that mean that there has been no alteration of the Labour Ordinance, although six months ago we were told it was going to be altered?
    Mr. WOOD: The original Ordinance stands until it has been replaced by the new Ordinance, which is being considered by the Governor.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It was six months ago that we were told it would be altered, and no action has been taken in the matter.
    Mr. WOOD: My hon. and gallant Friend has no right to say that no action has been taken, because the matter has been under the immediate and continuous consideration of the Governor since his return to Nairobi. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the Governor's time has been taken up with a great many other matters, which has made it impossible for him to devote continuous attention to this particular question, but there has been no avoidable delay.

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister which Department appoints the directors to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and is responsible for the instructions given to the representatives of the Government; and which Department do the directors consult when they require instructions on any particular policy?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): The agreement and the articles of association of the company provide for the appointment of two ex-officio directors by the Treasury, one of whom is chosen to represent the Admiralty directly. The ex-officio directors consult the Admiralty or the Treasury, as the case may be, when they require instructions.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who generally gives instructions to the directors? Do they consult the Admiralty, or the Treasury, or both?
    Sir R. HORNE: They consult both, according to the particular question which arises.

    LIVING (COST).
    Captain WATSONasked the Prime Minister whether the cost of living is falling in ratio with the demands made in some trades for wage reductions; and whether, in the public interest and to lessen industrial unrest, the Government is prepared to set up a commission of inquiry to ascertain the facts?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. In a great many cases wages are on a sliding scale related to the movement of the cost of living index figure. In a great many other cases this is not so, though in these latter cases agreements have been arrived at during recent months in a very large number of cases involving reductions in scales of wages. No doubt the cost of living has an important bearing upon wage adjustments. But it is not the only factor. The question of arriving at selling prices for our goods which shall find acceptance in foreign markets must always be one of the main considerations before those who have the duty of making adjustments in the several factors of the cost of production. These things being so, I do not think that the inquiry suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend would serve any useful purpose.

    GENOA CONFERENCE.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether the subjects which were originally arranged to be discussed at Genoa were in any way circumscribed or limited by subsequent agreements made recently with M. Poincaré; and whether any question of the revision of the financial Clauses of the Versailles Treaty or the curtailment of the land forces of the nations represented at the Conference are ruled out from discussion or resolution at the Genoa Conference?
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister the specific objects for which he is going to the Genoa Conference?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member and my Noble Friend will await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposes to make on the 3rd April.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to explain the policy to be put forward at Genoa on behalf of His Majesty's Government by the British representatives when he asks for the confidence of this House on 3rd April next; and whether an opportunity will be given to debate that policy before a vote is taken?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both parts of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman now state whether the Vote on 3rd April will be on that policy, or will be simply one of confidence in the Government's being able to carry it out?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I have already said, and, if not, I say it at once, that we will give due notice of the Resolution we propose to move, and the hon. and gallant Member will be able to see its exact terms when it appears on the Paper.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: When will it be put on the Paper? The Debate being on Monday week, will it be put on the Paper on the Thursday?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes, I hope to give notice of that kind, putting it on the Paper on the Thursday.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Lord Privy Seal what are the specific economic questions which it is proposed should be discussed by the forthcoming Conference at Genoa?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As my hon. Friend is aware, the various countries concerned are considering what proposals to put forward. I am not in a position to state what their decisions may be.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Could the right hon. Gentleman state at an early period the proposals of an economic character which His Majesty's Government intend to put forward?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The proper time for explaining the policy of His Majesty's Government will be in the Debate on 3rd April.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: While agreeing with that, might I suggest that it would be rather hard lines to ask the faithful Commons to debate a matter about which they only hear at the moment before they are called upon to debate it? In a matter of this importance, might we not have some outline of the proposals a little in advance of the Debate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The object of the Debate is to give the opportunity of hearing the policy of the Government and expressing an opinion upon it. I do not notice that my hon. Friend, or hon. Members generally, ever consider that

    655
    notice is required before Ministers are expected to give replies upon the most abstruse questions.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Lord Privy Seal what are the terms of the Vote of confidence which it is proposed to move on 3rd April?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have already said, in answer to a supplementary question, I will take care that proper notice is given of the terms of Motion, but I cannot state them at present.

    ANTI-BRITISH PROPAGANDA.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to two pamphlets which are being sent to this country, entitled "England's War Guilt and the Monstrous Lie," written by the Rev. O. Hartwich, minister at the Bremen Cathedral, and president of the German Save-the-Honour League, and distributed free of charge by the Volks-bund Rettet die Ehre, 13, Wielandstrasse, Bremen; and will he make representations to the German Government on the subject?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is no evidence to show that the German Government are responsible for the free distribution of these pamphlets. Should any evidence to that effect be forthcoming, the advisability of making representations to the German Government on the subject will be considered.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not the fact that, while no part of this question alleges that the German Government are doing this, they are the lever for doing it, and could not the right hon. Gentleman drop a hint in the proper quarter that these pamphlets are creating bad feeling in this country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not hear what the hon. and gallant Member said.

    ALLOTMENTS BILL.
    Mr. G. BARNESasked the Lord Privy Seal if he can yet name a day for the introduction of a Bill to deal with
    656
    allotments; is he aware of the widespread interest in the question, not only on the part of allotment holders, but by those concerned with public health and the increase of home-grown food; and will he make a statement of the Government's intentions before Easter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot speak definitely, but I hope that the Bill will be introduced before Easter, either here or in another place.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Has any decision been come to as to a separate Bill for Scotland?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is under consideration.

    CURRENCY.
    Mr. HAILWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that most of the industrial trouble, such as strikes and rising prices, lockouts, unemployment, and trade depression is caused through the fluctuating value of currency, he has ever considered the advisability of basing the currency on an article of real and constant value like wheat, instead of, as at present, having it remotely connected to an article of no value like gold; and, seeing the gain to the nation a stable internal currency would bring, will he take immediate steps to effect this reform?
    Sir R. HORNE: Economists have frequently speculated on the possibility of a standard based, not on gold or silver, but on the purchasing power of some particular commodity or of commodities generally as measured by a representative index number. Such a refinement of currency policy may be theoretically sound, but has never yet been practically tested. In any case, before embarking on so ambitious an experiment, it is surely desirable for us first to get back to that approximation to stability which the gold standard supplies, and to which the world before 1914 was thoroughly accustomed. I must demur to my hon. Friend's statement that gold has no value. It is because of its value that it has been chosen as a standard.
    Mr. HAILWOOD: In view of the fact that the trouble may be intensified by a further reduction in the price of commodities, will the right hon. Gentleman

    657
    consider the advisability of appointing some sort of Commission to go thoroughly into this question?
    Sir R. HORNE: There have been very many Commissions.
    Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to support the proposal of the organised workers that an inquiry should be held into the whole situation in connection with the present industrial disputes?

    RAND DISTURBANCES.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Prime Minister whether the South African Government are setting up an inquiry into the origin and causes of the recent disorders in and about Johannesburg; whether a request will be made that His Majesty's Government may be supplied with a full Report of such inquiry; and whether, if it is ascertained that the recent disorders were directly traceable to Bolshevist organisation and incitement, this House may be informed at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. WOOD: I have been asked to reply to this question. I understand that the Government of the Union of South Africa proposes to set up a Commission of Inquiry to deal with the issues raised by the recent disturbances. Copies of its Report, when published, will, no doubt, be supplied to His Majesty's Government.
    Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: Will it be in accordance with precedent to congratulate General Smuts upon his firm handling of the outbreak?
    Mr. WOOD: I am not familiar with the precedents on the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?
    Mr. WOOD: I thought I had answered the last part implicitly, by the suggestion that when my hon. and gallant Friend had the Report before him he would be able to form his own conclusions, which might carry more weight than anything coming from myself.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any protest from the advisory county cricket committee against the proposal to tax the subscriptions of members of county cricket clubs for the purposes of the Entertainments Duty; and whether he will reconsider such proposal, in view of the fact that the clubs are run for cricket and not for profit, and that those who subscribe to county clubs do so to support cricket and not to obtain any personal advantage?
    Sir R. HORNE: I have received the protest referred to. Entertainments Duty is chargeable on such part of the membership subscriptions of any club as represents payment for the right of admission to entertainments in respect of which Entertainments Duty is payable. It is not, as suggested, a new departure to levy the duty on the membership subscriptions of county cricket clubs; and the Courts have recently decided that in fact such subscriptions do in part represent payment for the right of admission to taxable entertainments and have therefore been properly charged with duty under the law. It would be impracticable, for the purpose of charging Entertainments Duty, to differentiate between the subscriptions of county cricket clubs and the subscriptions of other clubs, or between payments for admission to entertainments run for profit and payments for admission to entertainments not run for profit.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of members of cricket clubs do not attend matches, but simply subscribe to support cricket?
    Sir R. HORNE: That is so, and, of course, allowance is made for that.
    Mr. J. JONES: Why do the poorest people who pay for admission to entertainments have to pay the highest contribution in tax?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

    SPIRITS DUTY.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a memorandum from the

    659
    Whisky Association drawing attention to the fact that the Spirits Duty, which is now 72s. 6d., was in 1913 14s. 9d per proof gallon, and is now, therefore, 18 times the average selling price of new whisky, a rate of taxation borne by no other article subject to Excise duty, and that this prohibitive duty of 72s. 6d. was responsible for the fall in consumption in 1920, resulting in the revenue from the Spirits Duty falling some £15,000,000 short of the revenue anticipated in the 1920 Budget; whether, in view of the foregoing Considerations, it will be possible to reduce the Spirits Duty from the present high level of 72s. 6d. per proof gallon to at least 50s. per proof gallon;
    (2) whether he has received a memorandum from the Distillers Company, Limited, and the United Distillery, Limited, drawing attention to the fact that the diminished output of spirits consequent upon the present high taxes results in the diminished output of yeast, thereby rendering necessary the importation of foreign yeast, and that the production of spirits and yeast in January, 1920, 1921, and 1922 was respectively as follows: 1920, spirits 1,817,979 gallons, yeast 2,538 tons; 1921, spirits 1,942,636 gallons, yeast 2,115 tons; 1922, spirits 1,408,578 gallons, yeast 1,966 tons; whilst yeast imported from abroad during the same months was: 1920, 161 tons; 1921, 320 tons; and 1922, 566 tons; and whether, in view of the menace to the British yeast trade, he will consider the reduction of the Spirits Duty from 72s. 6d. per proof gallon to at least to 50s. per proof gallon?
    Sir R. HORNE: I can add nothing to the reply given on this subject to my hon. Friend yesterday.

    INTERNAL DEBT (INTEREST).
    Mr. L. MALONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the extraordinary burden of national expenditure, and to the fact that over one-third of this expenditure consists of interest and other charges on the National Debt, of which six-sevenths is internal debt, he will consider the possibility of easing the national burden by reducing the interest on internal debt pari passu with the fall in the cost of living, thus regulating payments to War
    660
    bondholders on the same principle on which payments to salary and wage-earners and to Civil Service pensioners are now being reduced, and War pensions under the Royal Warrants are to be reduced in April, 1923, in proportion to the fall in the cost of living between 1919 and 1922?
    Sir R. HORNE: The answer is in the negative. The analogy which the hon. Member seeks to establish is, I think, entirely unsound.

    CIVIL SERVICE NATIONAL WHITLEY COUNCIL.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the method to be adopted in appointing a number of Members of Parliament to serve on the Civil Service Whitley Council; how many are to be appointed; and whether they are to be drawn from the various sections of the House?
    Sir R. HORNE: The official side of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service is nominated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I propose accordingly to invite three Members of Parliament to serve on the Council. It has already been explained to the House that Members of Parliament so appointed will form part of the side which is responsible to Ministers and exercises such authority and responsibility as may be delegated to it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and under these conditions nomination would naturally be confined to supporters of the Government of the time.
    Mr. HAYDAY: If, as was mentioned during the Debate on this subject, there should be direct representation from the House, surely it is only fair and reasonable that the representation from the House itself ought to be drawn from the various parties, and not particularly from those immediately under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department?
    Sir R. HORNE: That is a matter for debate. I can only say I entirely disagree.
    Sir J. D. REES: Who will be committed by the action of its members other than the members themselves, and does not the hon. Member's question show how undesirable it is to appoint them?
    Mr. HAYDAY: If the Whitley Council is to be representative, as was the intention of the House, of the civil servants' side and those nominated from the Department by the right hon. Gentleman, surely it can only be carried out by representation directly responsible to the House, and not acting under the direction or authority of any particular Minister?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid the situation is quite the contrary to what the hon. Member describes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the person who is responsible for the official side of the Whitley Council, and accordingly the responsibility lies upon him and not with the House. It is for him to select those members whom he delegates for the purpose.
    Mr. AMMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider keeping in being the Civil Service Arbitration Board complementary to the Whitley Council?
    Sir R. HORNE: No; on the contrary, the reason why the Arbitration Board has been cancelled is because it so interrupts and interferes with the acts of the Whitley Council.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

    ARSENIC.
    Sir EDWARD NICHOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade in what respect does industrial-grade arsenic differ from the dutiable article as included in the Board of Trade list?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): Industrial-grade arsenic differs from the dutiable article in that it is produced and refined on a large scale by processes which cannot be regarded as fine-chemical processes, but are in the nature of metallurgical processes, whilst the dutiable article is produced by typically fine-chemical processes for use, for instance, as an analytical reagent. The standard of purity required for the reagent is higher than that of the ordinary industrial grades.

    ARSENIOUS ACID.
    Sir E. NICHOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any complaint that arsenious
    662
    acid is being imported into this country under the name of arsenic or powdered white arsenic, which corresponds with the definition of the arsenious acid which is dutiable according to the list of the Board of Trade drawn up under the provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Act (List H), and that such imports are not bearing the duty imposed by the Act?
    Mr. BALDWIN: A complaint has been made that arsenious acid which is being imported under the names mentioned by my hon. Friend is, in fact, of the grade included in the Board of Trade list, and is therefore chargeable with duty. I am, however, unable to agree that the heading in question covers ordinary refined white arsenic of the grades generally used in industry.
    Sir E. NICHOLL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the seriousness of this arsenic matter to the Cornish miner, and that this other arsenic is allowed to come in duty free while they are starving?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am quite aware of the serious state of that industry, and I think I have told my hon. Friend by letter that it is open to anyone who thinks I am taking a wrong course to appeal to the referee.

    SCHEDULED ARTICLES (REFEREE'S JUDGMENT).
    Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the judgment given by the referee under the Safeguarding of Industries Act in regard to the complaint that his Department had improperly included cream of tartar and citric acid in the list of commodities to be taxed under the key industries schedule; whether he has noted that a period of seven days has been allowed by the referee before the judgment is signed, with a view to giving the Department an opportunity of notifying if it is its desire that judgment should be stated in the form of a case which can be decided in the High Court; and what action he proposes to take in the matter, in view of the provision of the Act that in the event of any dispute the question of whether a commodity is taxable should be remitted to a referee whose decision would be final?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of the decisions in question. The referee decided to allow a period of seven days

    663
    before signing his award, for the reason stated by the hon. Member, and the matter is under consideration. As regards the last part of the question, I would point out the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, apply to these references to the referee under Section 1 (5) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act.
    Mr. KILEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the state of confusion and indeed chaos that has resulted in all these industries by this ever-changing list, and will it be possible to revise the present list and remove these commodities from it, so as to save an enormous amount of time, expense and chaos?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am always willing to revise if the revision leads to improvement, but I cannot agree that the state of chaos is as great as my hon. Friend desires to see it.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary for Scotland is reported to have said that he had no extravagant enthusiasm for the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am quite aware of that without referring to the newspapers.
    Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the situation arising out of the fact that the referee has given judgment, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, against the Board of Trade in respect of santonine, gas mantles, cream of tartar and citric acid, and sugar milk; and whether, in view of the fact that these decisions involve principles affecting a considerable number of other commodities in the key industries list as denned by the Board of Trade, and in view of the considerable expenditure of public and of other money involved in contesting these cases, he is prepared to take action to delete from the list commodities whose deletion is logically involved in the judgments already given, and thus save the enormous expense involved in obtaining individual decisions?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of the decisions mentioned, but I am not satisfied that the principles underlying them are so definite and of so general application as the hon. Member appears to suggest, or were intended to be so by the referee. The whole question will, however, be considered in the light of these
    664
    decisions, and of the decisions in other cases which will be taken very shortly.
    Mr. KILEY: Will that be in the next week or two?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should not like to say that.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TARIFF PREFERENCE, BRAZIL.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any efforts have been made to induce the Brazilian Government to extend preference to this country in the way of tariffs on British goods, having regard to the fact that goods from Belgium and the United States are so treated, and having regard also to the part that the large investments of British capital in Brazil have played in the development of Brazil's natural resources?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Repeated efforts have been made in the past to secure for United Kingdom goods the reduced rates of duty accorded by Brazil to various goods of United States origin, and, more recently, also to some of these articles, the produce of Belgium. I regret that these efforts have proved unsuccessful, but no opportunity will be lost of pressing the just claims of this country upon the attention of the Brazilian Government.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is it quite recently that that Report has been made?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No, my information is that it goes back many years.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will my right hon. Friend press the matter again in the interests of British trade?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly.

    CENTENARY EXHIBITION, BRAZIL.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the necessity for developing every opportunity of Foreign trade, and in view of the commemoration of the centenary of Brazil's independence in September, 1922, by the holding of an exhibition in Rio de Janeiro, whether the Department of Overseas Trade contemplates any steps to bring the advantages of such an exhibition before British

    665
    traders; whether the Department contemplates exhibiting articles of British produce and manufacture at the public expense in order to foster trade relations between this country and Brazil; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of having some national exhibit of this kind at the exhibition in view of the ever-increasing competition with which British goods are meeting in Brazilian markets?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The advantages of participation in the Brazilian Centenary Exhibition have been brought to the notice of British traders by correspondence, and, so far as possible, by personal interviews, with a view to obtaining a thoroughly representative British section. The greater part of the funds available, consisting of the grant from public funds and of the sum raised by the Anglo-Brazilian Committee, will be absorbed in connection with the erection of the British pavilion, and the provision and display of models and other pictorial exhibits illustrating the extent and resources of the British Empire, and the part which British industry, shipping and finance have played in the development of Brazil. For other British exhibits, the usual practice will be followed of making a charge for space occupied to cover the cost of the accommodation required.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: In the event of British manufacturers wishing assistance, will it be available from my hon. Friend's Department?

    —

    United Kingdom,

    Germany.

    1913.

    1921.

    1913.

    1921.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Coal produced

    …

    …

    287,430,473

    164,452,500

    187,054,000

    134,021,000

    Lignite produced

    …

    …

    —

    —

    85,831,000

    121,034,000

    Imports of

    Coal

    …

    …

    7,226

    3,433,568

    10,371,000

    689,000

    Lignite

    …

    …

    —

    —

    6,874,000

    2,786,000

    Coke

    …

    …

    15,579

    49,110

    583,000

    —

    Briquettes

    …

    …

    1,224

    24,367

    145,000

    —

    Exports* of

    Coal

    …

    …

    73,400,299

    24,555,395

    34,018,000

    17,962,000

    Lignite

    …

    …

    —

    —

    59,000

    37,000

    Coke

    …

    …

    1,236,642

    736,213

    6,308,000

    5,230,000

    Briquettes

    …

    …

    2,053,197

    850,074

    3,113,000

    744,000

    *Including re-exports in the case of the United Kingdom.

    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Most certainly. The whole exhibition will be run in consultation with the Anglo-Brazilian Committee, and the Department will be at the service of the exhibitors in preparation for the exhibition and during its progress.

    COAL AND LIGNITE (GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY).
    Mr. HASLAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to ascertain approximately the relative industrial activity of Germany and Great Britain, respectively, in terms of units of heat, he will state the tonnage of coal and lignite exported by Germany in 1913 and 1921, respectively; will he also state the approximate tonnage of coal and lignite, respectively, used for German home consumption in 1913 and 1921, respectively, and also the tonnage of coal used for home purposes in the United Kingdom during the above-named years, showing the tonnage of coal used in each of those years for domestic and industrial purposes, and bunker coal, separately?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As the answer involves a statistical statement, I will, with the permission of the House, circulate it in the OFFICIAL BEPORT.
    The following is the statement:
    The following statement shows, in tons avoirdupois, the quantities of coal produced in the United Kingdom and in Germany in 1013 and in 1921, together with the quantities of coal, of coke, and of manufactured fuel, imported and exported in each of those years.
    The figures do not relate to the same areas for the two years in the case of Germany. The output in 1913 included 16,740,000 tons of coal produced in Alsace-Lorraine and in the Saar coalfield, the output of neither of which areas was included in the figures of production in 1921. In the case of Germany, the figures of exports include German coal supplied for bunkering purposes to foreign vessels in German ports, the amount of which in 1913 was 327,000 tons. The corresponding figure for 1921 is not available. No particulars are available regarding the quantity of bunker coal supplied to German vessels. The quantity of bunker fuel supplied to foreign-going vessels at United Kingdom ports was 21,031,000 tons in 1913 and 11,047,000 tons in 1921. After allowing for the approximate quantities of coal required for the production of the coke and briquettes exported, imported, and used for bunker fuel, so far as this is shown above, the quantities available for all other purposes were as follow:

    —

    1913.

    1921.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    United Kingdom

    189,125,000

    130,286,000

    Germany.

    Coal

    153,000,000

    109,000,000

    Lignite

    92,000,000

    123,000,000

    These quantities include the fuel used in the operation of the mines and allowance coal supplied to mine-workers.

    ELECTRICAL PLANT, GERMANY.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulty that English companies have experienced for some months in obtaining quotations for electrical plant from German firms; and can he state whether this condition is due to electrical firms in Germany being too heavily engaged owing to the urgent demand for German home purposes, and also for the needs of neutral countries?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My attention had not previously been drawn to the particular matter mentioned by my hon. Friend. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that many branches of the electrical industry are actively engaged on home and also, to some extent, foreign orders.

  EDUCATION.

    ROAN SCHOOL, GREENWICH.
    Mr. AMMONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, prior to the War, the Board of Education threatened the governors of the Roan School, Greenwich, with loss of grant if better and more suitable premises were not built; and will he state why, although in 1918 a site was obtained, the rebuilding of the school was forbidden, seeing that the school is now overcrowded and that the stone-floored washing lavatory is now used for classes and meals?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Prior to the War, the Board urged the removal of the school, but they did not threaten loss of grant. No proposals have been received for the erection of buildings on the site purchased in 1921. I understand that the room referred to is no longer used as a class room, and that it is not unfit for temporary use as an overflow dining room.
    Mr. AMMON: Will no objection be taken to their proceeding with this new building if they desire to go forward on the land they have acquired?
    Mr. FISHER: I think that is so.

    DAY CONTINUATION SCHOOLS, LONDON.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Education what is really taught in the day continuation schools in London; and whether he is satisfied as to the discipline and that the result is really worth the cost?
    Mr. FISHER: In the London day continuation schools the subjects of instruction are: For boys, calculations, drawing, English subjects (including history and geography), practical work and physical exercises; for girls, the same subjects, with the addition of singing, less time being given for calculations. I am assured that distinct progress has been made towards the solution of the problems of discipline, and I believe that those who are best acquainted with the schools are satisfied that, notwithstanding the unavoidable difficulties with which the teachers have been faced, the moral and intellectual benefit obtained by the young persons in attendance is substantial.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that in the financial condition of the country the moral and intellectual benefits received by the children are equal to the financial responsibility incurred by the nation?
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member is putting to me a very difficult question.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if in the calculation classes the boys ever calculate what they cost per head to the taxpayer?
    Mr. FISHER: That is a mathematical problem. [Interruption.]
    Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Cannot something be done to stop the chatter of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones)?
    Mr. J. JONES: Cannot something be done to stop the motoring of the Noble Lord?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have before recommended the Noble Lord and the hon. Member to take conference together.
    Mr. JONES: I have never run over a child anyhow.
    Viscount CURZON: The hon. Member's interruptions are very rude.
    Mr. JONES: Yours are very crude.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is on that point of mutual courtesy that I suggest that the hon. Members should take conference together.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE'S PROPOSALS.
    Mr. MALONEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he intends to introduce legislation embodying the proposals of the Geddes Committee regarding education which the Government have adopted; and, if so, will he state when the Bill will be introduced?
    Mr. FISHER: Legislation will be introduced to give effect to the Government's decisions on the Committee's recommendations so far as legislation is required for the purpose. I cannot name a date for its introduction.
    Mr. MALONE: Will that be before the House adjourns for Easter?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot name a date.

    BREWING AND DISTILLING MATERIALS.
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the quantities of malt, unmalted grain, rice and maize, sugar, glucose, etc., and hops used in the brewing of beer during the year ending 30th September, 1921; and the quantities of malt, unmalted grain, rice and maize, sugar, and molasses, used in distilling during the same year?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): As the information asked for is in tabular form, I would ask the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the table:
    Quantities of the undermentioned materials used in the brewing of beer and in distilling, respectively, during the year ending 30th September, 1921.

    Brewing of Beer.

    Bushels.

    Malt

    39,269,480

    Unmalted Grain: Maize

    5,040

    Unmalted Grain: Other Grain

    62,961

    Cwts.

    Rice, Rice Grits, and Flaked Rice

    36,829

    Maize Grits, Flaked Maize, and other similar preparations

    943,126

    Sugar, including its equivalent of Syrups, Glucose, and Saccharin

    1,873,525

    Lbs.

    Hops

    50,876,885

    Distilling.

    Qtrs.

    Malt

    …

    …

    1,133,381

    Unmalted Grain

    …

    …

    979,403

    …

    …

    Cwts.

    Rice

    …

    …

    7,482

    Maize,

    …

    …

    22,060

    Sugar

    …

    …

    —

    Molasses

    …

    …

    278,578

    CIVIL SERVICE (RE-GRADING).
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the re-grading schemes of the Post Office, Public Trustee Office, Ministry of Labour, and outdoor staff of

    671
    the Ministry of Health show the posts to be allocated on re-grading to men and women separately, and that in no case is the proportion of higher to lower posts as high for the women as for the men employed on the same class of work, the discrepancy being in some cases as high as one in four higher posts for men and one in 24 for women; and, as the work throughout the Service is now standardised in grades, what is the reason for the discrepancy?
    Mr. YOUNG: The circumstances of different Departments vary greatly and only the Ministers in charge of the Departments named could give a detailed answer to this question. But, speaking generally, re-grading schemes for the Departments named, as for others, have been based on the work to be done and not on the sex of the officers who are performing or may perform that work. The schemes of the Ministry of Labour and Public Trustee's Office do not show separately the posts allocated to each sex. The ratio of higher to lower posts depends entirely on the merits of the work. I cannot accept the proportions quoted as accurate, seeing that in the case, for instance, of the outdoor staff of the Ministry of Health the proportion of inspectors (or of inspectors and assistant-inspectors) to lower grades favours the women. The allocation of existing personnel to the re-organised complements depends largely on existing grades and duties.

    POULTRY KEEPING.
    Major COLFOXasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that local authorities in several urban districts are attempting to prohibit or restrict poultry being kept in back yards, notwithstanding the fact that the bye-laws of such authorities give them no power to prohibit poultry being so kept; that the City of Nottingham has issued a general notice ordering that fowls kept in back yards must be removed within two months, failing which proceedings are threatened to enforce the removal thereof; and that as a result of illegal notices of this character many people have been coerced into giving up their fowls, thus reducing home production; and whether he will take steps to notify all local authorities that
    672
    the keeping of fowls under proper conditions cannot be interfered with, unless a nuisance is created or the public health endangered thereby?
    Mr. PARKER (for Sir Alfred Mond): My right hon. Friend has no evidence that local authorities are exceeding their powers in this matter, and he does not think that any such notification as is suggested is called for. He understands that the National Poultry Council, who have been in communication with his Department, are about to issue a leaflet on the subject.
    Major COLFOXasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that local authorities which have erected what are known as council houses, largely subsidised from public funds, have in some instances prohibited the keeping of fowls on the gardens attached to these houses, even where the space and conditions are specially favourable; and whether he is prepared to suggest to such local authorities the adoption of such reasonable and adequate regulations under which poultry keeping can be permitted, thus increasing opportunities for greater home food production?
    Mr. PARKER: My right hon. Friend would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield on this subject on the 15th February.

    SUB-POST OFFICE, MAIDA HILL.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the emoluments paid to the late sub-postmaster of the Maida Hill, Formosa Street, town sub-office, were more than sufficient to justify the creation of a Crown post office, in accordance with the recommendations of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and that the position of postmaster is at present vacant, he will, in these circumstances, arrange for a branch office to be substituted for the existing sub-office?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): It is proposed to cease delivering telegrams from this office, and as the emoluments then warranted will be much lower than at present there are no grounds for altering the status of the office.

    CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied that the Canadian and other countries' cattle are free from foot-and-mouth disease; and, if so, why, in these days of 'big prices for meat, he is not in favour of taking the embargo off and allowing the free importation of cattle into this country, and thus reducing the cost of living?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): While I am satisfied that foot-and-mouth disease does not at present exist in Canada, it is known to be prevalent in other countries. As regards the second part of the question, I cannot agree that the free importation of store cattle from Canada would reduce appreciably the cost of living, and I would remind the hon. Member that the Royal Commission which considered the question last year were of the same opinion.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe in the law of supply and demand?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, but if you get in store cattle from Canada you would have less stores bred in this country.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not in accordance with precedent that the Report of a Royal Commission should be discussed in this House, and when will the Government allow this House to discuss this Report?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am quite willing that there should be a discussion, but that is a question which ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the importation of these cattle is not going to lower the price of meat, how is it going to help the farmer, which is the excuse given by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is developing into a debate.

    NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how much the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes would be liable to
    674
    pay in Income Tax for the past three years in the event of it being decided that they should pay such a tax; and whether any decision has been come to in the matter?
    Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. The Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes only came into existence on the 1st January, 1921, and the question of their liability to Income Tax, which is still under consideration, would not arise for any year prior to the year 1920–21. I ought to add that in any case the Board of Inland Revenue would be precluded from disclosing particulars of any Income Tax charge imposed on this or any other taxpayer.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes have been in being since 1917 under the name of the Navy and Army Canteen Board?
    Sir R. HORNE: That is entirely a different question.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the position of the employés of the Navy, Army, and Air-Institutes in the Irish Free State; whether the Clause in the Irish Treaty protecting those who will be thrown out of employment through the change of Government is applicable to these men and women; whether he is aware that many of them have been serving the troops for years, recently at the peril of their lives; and if he can say what compensation it is proposed to offer them for their loss of employment?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): The personnel of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes are not Government employés and consequently the Clause in the Irish Treaty to which my Noble Friend refers is not applicable. The question of the position of the employés of the organisation is purely a domestic one affecting the Board of Management and is not one in which the War Office can intervene. I understand, however, that the Board are making arrangements to compensate according to length of service those employés whose services will not be required after the South Irish regiments have been disbanded.
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the War Office do their best to induce the Board to deal generously with these men who have served the troops so well during the last two years?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I am sure they do not require any representation from the War Office in that respect.
    Mr. MORRISONasked the Secretary of State for War whether any sum has been advanced from the United Services Fund to the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes; and, if so, what is the amount and on what terms has the advance been made?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer was not very satisfactory?
    Sir R. SANDERS: The answer is in the negative.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order, Questions 1 and 2, addressed to the Minister of Pensions, have been called a second time, and have not been answered. Why have we nobody present on behalf of the Department to answer questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Should an hon. Member not be in his place to ask questions which he has put down when they are called the first time, there is no obligation on Ministers to be present when the questions are called the second time.
    Mr. JONES: They ought to be. They are getting their money for doing nothing.

    HORSE ARTILLERY BATTERIES.
    Major M'LEANasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the grouping of horse artillery batteries, as is proposed for cavalry regiments, and so preserve the records, plate, and historic associations of the disbanded batteries?
    Sir R. SANDERS: These batteries will not be disbanded, but will be converted
    676
    into field artillery batteries, a corresponding number of field artillery units of comparatively recent formation being absorbed by them. I much regret the necessity for the disappearance of these latter batteries, but the course chosen appears to be the fairest in the general interest that is practicable in the circumstances. The method of grouping could not be applied to the batteries of the horse or field artillery.

    CORN SUBSIDY (SCOTLAND).
    Major MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Scottish Board of Agriculture are retaining the corn subsidy due to smallholders and ex-service men on the ground that excess debts and rents are owed to the Board by such men; and whether he will decline to sanction this proceeding, looking to the fact that the corn subsidy was intended to increase production and cannot be equitably used for these purposes?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am aware that in certain cases the amount of the subsidy has, by agreement with the persons concerned, been utilised in reduction of debts due to the Board by them. Where there is no such agreement, payment of the subsidy is being made to persons who are indebted to the Board except in cases where the Board hold decrees of Court against the debtors or otherwise entitled to arrest the subsidy by ordinary process of law. I may add that I am obtaining the opinion of the Law Officers with regard to the rights of the Board in the matter.
    Major M. WOOD: Are there many instances of that kind?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am afraid I cannot say.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    GRETNA FACTORY.
    Major MURRAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that almost all the men in the township of Eastriggs, Gretna, and a large number in Gretna township itself, are at present unemployed; and whether the Government is prepared to make better arrangements for the employment of these people until the factory may be sold or scrapped, look-

    677
    ing to the fact that the Government brought them to Gretna to work for the State and is their direct employer?
    Mr. YOUNG: I have been asked to answer this question. I am afraid I can add little to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy on the 16th February last, beyond stating that every effort on the lines already indicated will be made to spread evenly amongst the unemployed population of the Eastriggs and Gretna townships such employment as can be given from time to time in connection with the dismantling of buildings, machinery or railway track.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: When will Gretna be finally wound up?
    Mr. YOUNG: I am afraid that I cannot give a definite answer to that question.
    Major MURRAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether in any sale of the Gretna property and factory, either in whole or piecemeal, the Government will make arrangements so that the distress and unemployment, which has so long persisted in the district owing to the closing of the factory, may be alleviated?
    Mr. YOUNG: I regret that I cannot for obvious reasons undertake that the Disposal Board should introduce into any contract for the sale of the whole or a part of the Gretna property and factory conditions to restrict a purchaser in the selection of his labour. It would, however, seem unlikely that a purchaser would import ordinary labour if it were available on the spot. I may add that in such sales of machinery and stores as are being carried out at Gretna every endeavour is made to induce purchasers to employ local labour as far as possible in the work of removing their purchases; and in general the object which the hon. and gallant Member has in view will contantly be borne in mind.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. SWANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the period of payment of the unemployment benefit is about to expire to large numbers of workmen in the county of Durham and that many of them have been out of work for over 12 months, through no fault of their own, and have spent a life's savings; and
    678
    if the Government has considered a further extension of the unemployed benefit in order to save destitution?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Under existing arrangements, the benefit rights to persons, who satisfy the conditions laid down, do not begin to expire till 5th April. The question of making provision for the period after 5th April has been receiving our most careful consideration, and I hope to present a Bill forthwith designed to do this.
    Mr. S. WALSH: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been directed to the statement in the public Press that the Cabinet have been considering the matter and have decided to reduce the rate of unemployment benefit, and has he any statement lo make to the House?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Member will wait a few hours, he will see the text of the Bill.

    UNITED STATES ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Note has been sent by the United States Government reaffirming the demand of that Government for payment of the cost of the American Army of Occupation from moneys received from Germany; whether a reply has been sent; and whether the Note and the reply will be laid on the Table?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative; to the second in the negative; to the third that the suggestion will be considered.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Will the Leader of the House say what business is to be taken next week?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On Monday, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill;
On Tuesday, the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill;
On Wednesday, the Unemployment Insurance Bill, Second Reading, and the East India Loans (Railways and Irriga-

679
tion) Bill. If any further time is available on that day we shall take the Diseases of Animals Bill, Second Reading, and the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, Second Reading. The last-named is not such a formidable Bill as it sounds.
Thursday will be allotted to Supply, and I will make a statement later, when arrangements have been made in the usual way as to what Supply is to be taken.
On Friday, we shall take the East India Loans (Railways and Irrigation) Bill, further stages of the Diseases of Animals Bill, and the Second Reading of the Summer Time Bill.
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the time proposed for the Summer Time Bill is totally inadequate?
Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what business is to be taken to-morrow?
Mr. WALSH: In view of the great interest taken in the Report of the
Geddes Committee, especially as it affects education, may I suggest that the Education Vote be put down for Thursday next?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Would the hon. Gentleman settle through the usual channels with other Gentlemen who sit on the Opposition side what Vote they would like taken? Then we will put that Vote down. As to to-morrow, there is no alteration in the programme announced. We want to conclude all the financial business which is necessary for the introduction of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Mr. G. BARNES: When may we expect the return of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Reports of the Committee of Supply of 21st March and 20th March and the Proceedings of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 55.

Division No. 58.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Grant, James Augustus

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

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

Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

Atkey, A. R.

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

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

Greer, Sir Harry

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Gretton, Colonel John

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Barlow, Sir Montague

Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Barnett, Major Richard W.

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

Hancock, John George

Barnston, Major Harry

Dockrell, Sir Maurice

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Barrand, A. R.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

Edgar, Clifford B.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Edge, Captain Sir William

Haslam, Lewis

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

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Hills, Major John Waller

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

Evans, Ernest

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Falcon, Captain Michael

Hopkins, John W. W.

Birchall, J. Dearman

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Fell, Sir Arthur

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

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Fildes, Henry

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Hudson, R. M.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Hurd, Percy A.

Brassey, H. L. C.

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Jameson, John Gordon

Breese, Major Charles E.

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Jephcott, A. R.

Brown, Major D. C.

Forrest, Walter

Jesson, C.

Bruton, Sir James

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Johnstone, Joseph

Burdon, Colonel Rowland

Gardiner, James

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

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

Gardner, Ernest

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Butcher, Sir John George

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

Carr, W. Theodore

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Kidd, James

Cautley, Henry Strother

Glyn, Major Ralph

King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

Goff, Sir R. Park

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Cheyne, Sir William Watson

Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

Larmor, Sir Joseph

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

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

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Sugden, W. H.

Lindsay, William Arthur

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Sutherland, Sir William

Lloyd, George Butler

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Parker, James

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Locker- Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Pearce, Sir William

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Townley, Maximilian G.

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

Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Tryon, Major George Clement

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Pratt, John William

Wallace, J.

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

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

McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

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

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Waring, Major Walter

McMicking, Major Gilbert

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

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

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

Reid, D. D.

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Remnant, Sir James

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

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

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

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

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Windsor, Viscount

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Winterton, Earl

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

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Wolmer, Viscount

Morris, Richard

Seddon, J. A.

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

Morrison, Hugh

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

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

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

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

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Meal, Arthur

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

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

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

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

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

Starkey, Captain John Ralph

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

Steel, Major S. Strang

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward

Stewart, Gershom

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hayday, Arthur

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Ammon, Charles George

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Rose, Frank H.

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hirst, G. H.

Sitch, Charles H.

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Sutton, John Edward

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Hogge, James Myles

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

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Keiley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cairns, John

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Kenyon, Barnet

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

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

Kiley, James Daniel

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lawson, John James

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

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

Wignall, James

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Foot, Isaac

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

Wintringham, Margaret

Galbraith, Samuel

Mills, John Edmund

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

Gillis, William

Mosley, Oswald

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grundy, T. W.

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. James Wilson.

Hallas, Eldred

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

Hartshorn, Vernon

Rendall, Athelstan

WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL,
"to make further provision with respect to the cancelling or suspending of licences under The Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1907," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by Mr. C. D. Murray; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
    REPORT [24th February].
      CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

        CLASS II.
        Resolution reported,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £1,130,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for payment of a Grant-in-Aid of Miscellaneous Services to be administered by the Provisional Government."
        Colonel NEWMAN: I beg to move, to leave out "£1,130,000," and to insert instead thereof "£1,129,900."
        On the 24th of last month the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary explained why this large subvention of over £1,000,000 which it was at first proposed to devote to the relief of Irish rates, and which as a matter of fact, was, under the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1920, diverted from the relief of Irish rates, had now been allocated, once more to something like its original purpose. The Government propose that this large sum of money shall be voted as something in the nature of a Grant-in-Aid to the Provisional Government in order that Irish main roads which have got out of order during the last few years should be put in order, and for other similar purposes. The right hon. Gentleman told the House on that occasion that as far as Great Britain is concerned
        "The moment the Truce is signed, the period covered by the rebellion or civil war has come to an end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1922; col. 2253, Vol. 150.]
        That, in other words, is, in the eyes of the Government and of this House, on 11th July, when the preliminary arrangements were made between Mr. de Valcra and the Prime Minister, technically civil war and rebellion came to an end. On 11th July something else happened. On 11th July, by entering into negotiation with the Sinn Fein forces, the Government recognised that those people who had been opposing us were, as a fact, belligerents, and that it was not a case of putting down civil disturbance and civil strife by the ordinary methods of
        704
        police action and so forth, but that we had been engaged for some time past in actual warfare. That, of course, is a rather important point for us loyalists in the South of Ireland. We have been looking to this fund of over £1,000,000 a year to get value given back to us for the property which has been destroyed. As long as it was a question merely of civil disturbance, we had this money coming in at the rate of £1,200,000 a year, or something like that, but the minute the Government recognised Sinn Fein forces as belligerents, automatically the Act of 1920 was scrapped, and the money which had been coming in every year disappeared. We lost something substantial. Supposing the Government in July of last year had determined not to make terms with the Irish Republican Army, but to go on with repressing civil disturbance. Supposing they had in a short while managed to re-assert law and order and authority in the South of Ireland, and things had gone on as they were going in 1919 and 1920, then as long as the Irish local authorities refused to obey the Act of 1920 and levy rates to meet compensation claims, we loyalists would have had £1,200,000 a year coming in to satisfy our claims. It is obvious to the House that in a comparatively few years, say, five or six years, our claims would have been satisfied under the Act of 1920.
        4.0 P.M.
        However the Government recognised the Irish Republican Army as belligerents; the Act of 1920 was scrapped and something which was of great potential value to us disappeared. I admit the situation in which the Government find themselves with regard to the claims put forward by loyalists who have suffered, as well as those put forward by the other side who have suffered by action of the forces of the Crown, is a very novel and difficult one. Thanks to British pluck and British fibre it has been very seldom in the long history of our Empire, that British forces have had to abandon any portion of the British Empire. I suppose the only case we can get, which is at all comparable to what has happened during the last couple of years in Ireland, is the analogy of the American War of Independence. After the American War of Independence, of course, we agreed to withdraw from British North America and British North America was recognised as an

        705
        independent Republic. On that occasion, there had been years of war, years of outrages committed by one side against the other and, as I dare say a great many Members of the House know, before the conclusion of the hostilities, a large force of British Loyalists, called the United Empire Loyalists, were forced to cross the American frontier into Canada. They went into Canada, and, after a time, the British Government recognised their claim to compensation, and they were awarded a sum of £4,000,000, beside getting free grants of land in Canada. Of course, it is perfectly obvious that £4,000,000 in those days represents something like £20,000,000 now. It is rather interesting to note that a direct ancestor of an hon. and gallant Member in this House led those settlers from the North American Republic across the border into Canada. That is how the Government of that time settled the claims of those British loyalists who were compelled to flee from what is now the United States to Canada. The settlement now proposed is on totally different lines. Each side is going to meet the claims, for the damage which it did. Where the damage was done by order of the competent authority of the Crown forces we pay, and where it was done by the Irish Republican Army the Provisional Government have agreed to pay. On the face of it, our Government have made a very good, bargain financially, because, of course, the damage inflicted by the Irish Republican forces has been a great deal more severe, from the point of view of money, than the damage which the British forces have inflicted on the other side. On the other side, it is rather a case of a certain number of farmhouses being burned by order of the competent military authority. As a reprisal a great number of very valuable houses were burned down. Of course, the claims in respect of those big houses far outweigh the claims in respect of the farmhouses. Therefore the Government have made rather a good arrangement.
        I do not want in any way to question the good faith of the Provisional Government. I do not want to say that the heads of the Provisional Government, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Michael Collins, or the others who form the Ministry, are not prepared, if they possibly can, to stand
        706
        by the arrangement to which they have come with the British Government. During the last few days or more, there has been a very intensified electoral campaign up and down Ireland, in view of the forthcoming General Election there. There have been a great many foolish things said by those who are advocating the Treaty. More than one responsible speaker has said that he regarded this Treaty, which is going to receive the Royal Assent in a couple of days, as a scrap of paper to go the way of other scraps of paper. Other equally foolish things have been said. I prefer to believe that Mr. Michael Collins and Mr. Griffith mean what they say, and that, having given their pledge, they will, if they possibly can, honour every pound of damage awarded to us loyalists in the South of Ireland. But, even supposing they genuinely mean to do that, we have to look at things from a common-sense and practical point of view.
        Just imagine two cases: A and B. A is a farmer who has had his farm house burned by order of the competent British authority by reason of an ambush close by, or something of that sort. As a reprisal, 10 miles away, B, a Protestant, has had his farm house burned by order of the competent authorities of the Irish Republican Army. Each of them is awarded £5,000, and these orders are confirmed. Both A and B are anxious for various reasons to get their money rather quickly, so they go to some discount broker or financier with their promissory notes, one backed by our Government and the other backed by the Provisional Government. They each ask that broker: "What will you give me-here and now on this note of mine?" A, backed by the British Government, would, I imagine, easily get something like 15s. in the £, but what would B, backed by the Provisional Government, get? He might get 5s. in the £. We have to see to it that both these men are placed in an absolutely equal position, that they both get their mnoey from a central fund at the same time, that the promise given by the Provisional Government to B is just as good as the promise given by the British Government to A, that when they come to be paid they are paid equally and at the same time, and that there is no more delay in the one case than in the other.

        707
        There is another advantage that A, who had his house destroyed by the British Military Forces, is going to have. It is perfectly certain that this Government will not lay down any conditions as to the payment of the money. They will not make A swear allegiance to the King, they will not say that he must rebuild his farm house, or that he must stay in the country. They will attach no conditions whatsoever, and rightly so, because, as a matter of fact, in a great many cases these people, who have had their farms destroyed or partially destroyed by the British Forces, have other resources and enough money to rebuild and restart. We have got to make it equally certain that B has no conditions attached to his award, and that the Provisional Government are debarred from making any conditions as to the payment. First of all it must, in both cases, be a cash payment. Of course, the British Government will pay in cash, and, equally, it must be a cash payment by the Provisional Government and not payment in bonds of the Irish Republican State, or the Free State, or any other form of bond raised in the near future by the Irish Government. There must be no conditions attached as to the taking of any Oath of Allegiance to the Irish Free State, or forcing a man to take Free State nationality, or that he must rebuild his house, or that he must live in the country. Those are all conditions which would be absolutely unfair.
        There is another point which I want to make, but which I cannot claim, and I do not wish to claim, as a right. I would like to put it to my right hon. Friend as a request. In a great many cases these people who have had their houses burned, and perhaps their stock driven off, are Very hard put to it to live at the present time. Perhaps they have been without income for more than a year, and their condition is getting very precarious. Would it not be possible, where it can be proved that the man is in difficult circumstances, to let him have 5 per cent. interest on his claim without him having to wait until the claim is gone into again? It is perfectly obvious, if, when the award came to be examined, it were reduced, that the interest that he had received would have to be taken into account in his final settlement.
        I have said so much about these pre-Treaty cases. I have told the Chief
        708
        Secretary one or two things which we think are essential if we are to be put on equal terms with those who are lucky enough to have their claims recognised by the British Government. I want to deal, in a very few words, with the post-Treaty cases, cases where a man has had damage done to him, his house burned, his stock driven off, and too often his land occupied after July 11th, or, what we call the Treaty date. There are many of those cases, and they are very hard. For the most part, they are not cases where the homestead has been burned, but where the stock has been driven off, perhaps stolen, where the land has been forcibly seized and taken over by order of the Irish Republican Government where notice to that effect has been put up by some Commandant of the Irish Republican Army, and where the man has been driven away and deprived of his livelihood. Those cases are really harder than the pre-Treaty cases, because in nearly every case he is a small man. In my own county, speaking generally, it is a small man who has become a marked man and unpopular, and he has been driven off his land.
        Those men are really deserving of consideration by the Government, and I would like to get an assurance that their cases will be treated as if they were pre-Treaty cases. At present, I understand, they have to go before some Republican Court and get an award from that Court, and then wait and perhaps whistle for their money. They are in a very bad position. Surely they ought to be in exactly the same position as the pre-Treaty case. You cannot draw that arbitrary line of 11th July. The Government ought to recognise their claims just as they do in the pre-Treaty cases, and they ought to impress upon the Provisional Government that they must pay them and treat them exactly as they have promised to treat the pre-Treaty cases. Those are the main facts that I want to put before the House. I am sorry that we are losing this Vote, and that it is being diverted to other purposes, but I think, on the whole, that the Government have made a good and reasonable case, and, if we can get an assurance from them on these few points, we shall, at any rate, feel somewhat more satisfied than we do at the present moment.
        Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I beg to second the Amendment. I approach this matter from a somewhat different point of view, namely, that of the British taxpayer, and it certainly strikes me as extraordinary that the large number of Members of this House, who profess to be, and are, greatly interested in economy, show such complete indifference to the Vote under discussion. Probably a good many of them who will presently come in and, without knowing anything about what is going on, support the Government, will be somewhat dismayed at the proposals to which they have given their support. Let me very shortly recall to the House exactly what this Vote is. To use the language of the Colonial Secretary, there was, "during the fighting" in Ireland, which means while the right hon. Gentleman was trying to suppress crime without much success, a great deal of damage done to property on both sides. A great deal of damage was necessarily done by the forces of the Crown in their attempt to re-establish order. I am not one of those who at the time complained of that. I understood that, assuming the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to be necessary, such destruction of property was unavoidable. The compensation for that damage would, under the ordinary law, have to be made good by the local authorities, and the Colonial Secretary told us on the 24th February that, "the local authorities, being hostile"—to use his phrase; I suppose he meant being hostile to this country—"refused to strike the necessary rates," and consequently they had no money to meet the claims for which they were legally responsible in making good this damage. Then the Government over here, finding that the local authorities would not strike a rate, stopped certain grants which in the ordinary course would be made to local taxation in Ireland, and by stopping them they formed a fund for meeting these damages. The remarkable thing is that, having formed that fund—remarkable, in view of the present Vote—the Colonial Secretary told us that that money had been practically all spent, that it was all used up to meet these claims, although at a later stage in his speech he used language quite inconsistent with that when he said that the question was the release of these funds. It is not true that there are any funds now to be released,
        710
        because the Government have used them all, and used them all for the purpose to which they ought to have been devoted by the local authorities.
        Let me pause for one moment to point out how this stands. Supposing those monies had been paid over by our Government to the local authorities in the ordinary course, and supposing that the local authorities had carried out their duty under the law and had met the claims for damage, in that case the money would equally have been spent, only it would have been spent by the local authorities, and the only difference is that, owing to what has taken place, this fund, instead of having been spent in the ordinary course by the local authorities, was spent by the Government here in discharging the liabilities of the local authorities. The Provisional Government are now coming to the Government here and to this House, and are saying, "Release these funds"—these funds that have been spent—"in order that we may be able to carry on the ordinary expenses of local government." In particular, the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary said that it was very necessary they should have these funds, because "the roads throughout Ireland have fallen into great disrepair." Therefore, the money we are now being asked to vote, more than a million pounds, is to be handed over to the Provisional Government in Ireland for, among other things, the repair of the roads, but a very illuminating sentence comes in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which tells us how these roads got out of repair. This is what he says:
        "At one time one of the methods employed by the rebels was to blow up the roads in order to prevent the movement of military motor-cars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1922; col. 2246, Vol. 150.]
        Just look what that means. It means that while this rebellion, or organised crime, or fighting, or civil war—whichever you call it, according to your point of view—was going on the enemy in Ireland were blowing up roads to prevent the right hon. Gentleman moving his military motors. Having destroyed their roads, they now, after the truce and the subsequent Treaty, come to the Government and to this House, and say, "Will you not vote us £1,130,000 in order that we may make good the damage we have already done to our roads?" The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, carry his

        711
        Vote, and that is why I say that a great many Members, when they come to realise what they have voted for in supporting the Government to-day, will be rather astonished at the way in which they have disposed of the taxpayers' money. The right hon. Gentleman said that the plea put forward by the Irish so-called Government was, to use his own language, that they "pressed us very strongly to liberate these intercepted revenues." I have already pointed out that it is not a question of liberating intercepted revenues, but it is a question of this House voting de novo £1,130,000 for the purposes which I have described.
        The Colonial Secretary, in the course of his speech, used a phrase which I could not possibly endorse, but which is not unimportant from this point of view. He spoke of the operations which had given rise to this necessity as "a rebellion retrospectively viewed as a civil war, terminated by a treaty and amnesty." I should have thought that "terminated" was rather an inapt word with which to describe anything existing in Ireland at the present moment, and certainly I do not share the point of view which regards this "retrospectively" as a civil war, but supposing it is, what is the effect? The British taxpayer, on the invitation of this Government, are now being invited and practically, under present conditions, compelled to pay for the damage done to the rebels by the right hon. Gentleman in trying to overcome them, or, if the Colonial Secretary's language be accepted, and if it were a civil war retrospectively viewed, we may use a more dignified phrase and call them the enemy. But is it not rather curious that if they were the enemy, the British taxpayer should be called upon to pay the damage which was done to the enemy during the War by this country in trying to win that War? The right hon. Gentleman tells us that when we have voted this money, which is to be paid over to the Provisional Government, the matter at some future time has all got to be reckoned up in cross-accounts, and he says that in that cross-account one of the items which will be, I suppose, an asset from this country's point of view, will be payment for goods that they may take over from us. Of course, we know what that means. The goods which they are
        712
        taking over from us are the munitions of war which they are now using against Ulster.
        The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill)The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill) indicated dissent.
        Mr. McNEILL: But that is so. The right hon. Gentleman has told us often that he has no information that that is so, and therefore I think the most he can do now is to take up an agnostic position. We have plenty of positive evidence that that is so.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: What evidence?
        Mr. McNEILL: A Crossley tender was taken only the other day—seen going over the Derry frontier—and rifles have been taken of British Government make.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: Many Crossley tenders and many rifles of British Government make were acquired by the rebel forces during the end of the conflict. They were either stolen or captured in fighting or otherwise acquired
        Mr. McNEILL: Have they not been restored as part of the Treaty? I accept correction from the right hon. Gentleman to this extent, that possibly it is quite true—I have no positive evidence—that these are stolen rather than purchased goods.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very concerned to make one point only. I have authorised the handing over of 3,500 rifles up to the present to the Provisional Government for the arming of police and troops of their raising to maintain their own authority, and there is a certain number of motor cars which also have been handed over, I submit my sincere conviction to the House that none of those have been used against Ulster, and I have the most direct personal assurances from the Members of the Provisional Government to that effect.
        Mr. McNEILL: Of course, there is a difference in our points of view. The right hon. Gentleman, owing to his present policy, pays some attention to those assurances. I pay none. I have the same unfaith that the right hon. Gentleman had a year ago, and the assurances of these gentlemen, on the strength of which he constantly, day after day, gives us information, carry absolutely no weight with us whatsoever, and there-

        713
        fore there is that fundamental difference between us, that I cannot feel very much impressed by assurances which rest upon no better evidence than that, though I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman is quite sincere in the belief that he puts before us, on however flimsy a ground that belief may rest. My conviction, and that of many others, is, although it may not be so, that the lorries, motor cars, rifles, and ammunition which are being used against Ulster at the present moment are probably in large measure what they have got from the right hon. Gentleman. That is the only thing they want them for. They are using ammunition that they have either bought from this Government or stolen from them, and it really does not very much matter which. The only point I was making was that the right hon. Gentleman says they are going to take into account in cross-accounts the things they have bought from the Government, which certainly include these things.
        The right hon. Gentleman has drawn a distinction in principle between the payment that is to be made for personal injuries and the payment that is to be made for damage to property. With regard to personal injuries, he told us on 24th February that each party would compensate its own casualties. I do not complain of that. I think that is all right, but so far as the damage to property is concerned, with which we are dealing under this Vote, exactly the opposite principle is adopted, namely, that the damage done by the forces of the Crown to the rebels is to be paid by us, and the damage done to the forces of the Crown and to their supporters, the loyalists, has got to be paid, not by this Government, but by the Provisional Government. Now how does that work? It works out in this way. The Sinn Feiners and rebels who have been damaged by the operations of the forces of the Crown, are going to get the money of the British taxpayer. The Government, on the other hand, and their supporters and loyalists in Ireland, are going to get the Sinn Feiners' I.O.U. I am quite open to correction, but that is what I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman. What he told us was that these things would be taken into a cross account, and we know perfectly well that when the balance is struck, there will be payments to be made on one side or the
        714
        other. The payments to which the Government here is liable will be paid—and promptly paid—but although the Sinn Feiners may be held liable to pay, those who have a claim against them will have nothing except an I.O.U. I asked the right hon. Gentleman in a question in this House what security there was, and his answer was that the security was the credit of the Provisional Government.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: Unless there was evidence that the bargain was being honourably carried out on both sides, certainly this Government would hold up its payments. The process would go on so long as it was being carried on honourably, according to the agreement on both sides. We should certainly not pay compensation for damage done by our own people, unless we got compensation for damage done by their people.
        Mr. McNEILL: I am very glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman's answer to me a little time ago was not quite correct, or, at any rate, not quite sufficient. I am very glad to hear he is not quite so simple, and that our friends on the Government side in Ireland are to have some better security than the credit of the Provisional Government. But he told us the other day this amount is to be fixed by a Commission, and he said:
        "The balance will be included in the general financial settlement between Great Britain and the Irish Free State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1922; col. 2252, Vol. 150.]
        Is the Commission—this has not been made clear—going to be charged with the duty of deciding the validity of the various claims? I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is not so simple-minded as I feared, and I hope he will get less simple-minded day by day; but he will remember a very famous occasion after the South African War, when President Kruger, in putting forward his claims, made a very large claim for moral and intellectual damage.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: After the Jameson Raid.
        Mr. McNEILL: After the Jameson Raid. I think it very likely that that example may be followed in Ireland, and that Mr. Michael Collins and his friends may put forward a similar claim.

        715
        If it were to be decided by the right hon. Gentleman, I should have complete confidence that they would not get a sixpence, but what is going to happen if it comes before this Commission? Apart from that, we all know quite well the sort of claims put forward by Ireland for years past in respect of overtaxation and matters of that sort, and we shall, no doubt, have a large claim for moral and intellectual damage for overtaxation and many other things, probably running back to the time of Strongbow. When that takes place, is this Commission going to decide all those questions, and are these unfortunate people who have suffered damage, and whose claims, we are told, have got to be taken into that general cross-account, to wait until it has been decided at what particular point in the last 700 years the financial claims of Ireland begin?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: They are two quite separate Commissions. One is the Commission dealing with the assessment of malicious injuries to property. That is the one affected by this Vote. After that there is the general financial settlement between Great Britain and Ireland, which is entirely separate, and will be undertaken at a later period.
        Mr. SPEAKER: I should point out that that second question is not covered by this Vote. This Vote clearly is money that has been withheld from the Local Taxation Account, and simply diverted for the payment of compensation for malicious injuries.
        Mr. McNEILL: I have already pointed out that this is a Vote for money which has been spent. As soon as this Vote is passed, it will require £1,130,000 to make it good. It will have to be voted, I suppose, in the ordinary way in the Consolidated Fund Bill. It is not money at present in the hands of the Government to be released for purposes to be determined by this Vote, and I understood the Colonial Secretary in Committee of Supply to say that the decision as to how this money, when voted, will be handed over to the Provisional Government in Ireland, how it is to be distributed, will depend upon the decision of a Commission, which is to go into the whole question of cross-accounts as between Great Britain and Ireland.
        Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the footnote in the Estimate which we are discussing:
        "It has now been agreed to pay this amount to the Provisional Government for Irish services under condition that it shall be regarded as a payment to account of such sums as may be found due from the British Government to the Irish Free State in connection with the arrangements for settlement between the Governments."
        Therefore it is in the Vote.
        Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite so. It is not a question of going back to Strongbow.
        Mr. McNEILL: On that point, what I think justifies my enlarged expectations as to the range of this cross-account is that in the Treaty, which is now embodied in a Bill before Parliament, there is a Clause which says that debts from this country to Ireland or from Ireland to this country may be set off, and I take it that it is in relation to this cross-account, which is, some time or other, to be struck, that this provision is brought in, otherwise I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said that a Commission would make inquiry in relation to the cross-account between the two countries. However that may be, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clear it up later on.
        There is one other point I want to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's attention. He has told us that damage done since the Truce, both as regards property and persons, will have to be thrown upon the local authorities under the ordinary law, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman this. What is going to be the result for the unfortunate people in the South of Ireland who have valid claims for damage done since the Truce? Supposing the local authorities again refuse to strike a rate, as they probably will? The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that, since the Truce last July, a very large proportion of the damage—I cannot say how much, but certainly, roughly, between 80 and 90 per cent.—has been done on the Sinn Fein side, and has been done against those who may be considered friendly to the Government. Therefore it does seem to me very unfair that these people should have to depend upon a much more doubtful security than those who suffered in what the right hon. Gentleman calls the civil war. Why

        717
        should this distinction be made? I think it is not a bit unlikely that the local authorities will do, as they did before, and say, "These people served the Crown, and are not deserving, and we shall certainly not strike a rate to make good their damage."
        This money is money which this House is being asked to Vote now out of the taxpayers' pocket to a Government which has no legal status whatever. It is perfectly true there is a Bill going through Parliament which may do good or bad—we do not know—but it is an extraordinary thing that we are actually voting a million of the taxpayers' money, and handing it over to a junta of gentlemen who have been put in a provisional position, and have yet no legal authority whatever, and, quite possibly, never may have. All depends upon the result, not merely of elections, but a lot of different contingencies and eventualities in Ireland, and, really, that does not seem to me to be the way to carry on national finance. We ought at least to wait until there is a responsible and a legal Government before we vote money and hand it over. Everybody knows that Members of this House will flock in to support the Government on this Vote, and the great majority of Members, keen as they profess to be over public economy, have not the slightest idea of what is being done. All I can say to some of my hon. Friend's who do understand this is: Let them take care that our constituents understand what is being done, and let us see that they understand, not only in our own constituencies, but in other constituencies, the way in which this Coalition Government—and, as we are in these days dividing the cheep from the goats, let me say, two Liberal Coalition Ministers—are asking this House to vote more than £1,000,000 of the taxpayers' money to make good damages incurred in trying to establish law and order in Ireland. I think if the constituencies understand that, it will certainly not be to the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman.
        The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): May I remind the House exactly what we are asking the House to do? It is set out in a note at the foot of the Estimate, and the right hon. Member for the City of
        718
        London (Sir F. Banbury) has quite rightly drawn attention to it:
        "Certain sums have been diverted from the Local Taxation account in order to meet payments on account of criminal injuries under the Criminal Injuries Act, 1920. It has now been agreed to pay this amount to the Provisional Government for Irish services under condition that it shall be regarded as a payment to account of such sums as may be found due from the British Government to the Irish Free State in connection with the arrangements for settlement between the Governments."
        The first point I would make is this. This is not a gift. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member has said, that this is a Vote of this House, but it is not a gift to the Provisional Government. It will be taken into account by the Government in the grand balance sheet, or, let us say, final balance sheet, which will settle outstanding accounts between the two Governments.
        Mr. REID: In going into this account, will the damage done by the British authorities in attempting to put down rebellion in Ireland be an item in the account?
        Sir H. GREENWOOD: All I can say is that this sum will be taken into account. The Government have to deal with the damage both in Northern and Southern Ireland. In Northern Ireland by an arrangement with the Prime Minister of that Government a total grant was agreed to. He, in his turn, will settle with all those claimants under the Criminal Injuries Acts. That settles the question of damages under these Acts, so far as the Northern Government is concerned.
        Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: To what date?
        Sir H. GREENWOOD: 14th January, 1922. A total sum has been agreed to. This fact was stated in Committee by the Colonial Secretary. A total sum of £1,500,000 has been accepted by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. In Southern Ireland the claims are much larger—it is difficult to say how much greater—but the Government has taken steps, which I am glad to say have in the main the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman), who actually lives in Southern Ireland and has been a victim of one of the unfortunate happenings there. Let me first deal with his speech. It is quite true, as he says, that if the Government had left the settlement of these claims to the normal legal procedure

        719
        under the 1920 and subsequent Acts it might have taken five years to pay every claim awarded under the Criminal Injuries Act. The main object of setting up the Commission to inquire into the property claims is to expedite the payment of these claims. No one, I think, questions the wisdom of setting up this Commission. Personal claims are to be paid in full. We pay the casualties on our side and the Provisional Government pay for the casualties on their side, an agreement being come to in any doubts ful cases. When a man makes a claim, or has an award under the Criminal Injuries Act in regard to his property, this Commission will inquire into it and have power to delegate its authority to investigate and assess, and I anticipate certainly the payments will be made immediately.
        Colonel NEWMAN: Are both sides' claims to be paid by either side?
        Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can, of course, speak only on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and say that it is their intention to pay immediately, and until it is proved to the contrary, I presume on the goodwill of the Provisional Government of Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
        Mr. J. JONES: They do not believe in it.
        Sir H. GREENWOOD: And that the Provisional Government will expeditiously discharge these claims. If they are allowed to go on they will be one of the greatest embarrassments to any Government of Ireland. I think that is a fair answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley. If these claims are not expeditiously met, His Majesty's Government must take it into consideration, and steps must be taken to pee that the victims of the hostilities receive attention. I look especially to the Irish Government to see that those concerned with these damaged properties are not left long without the award granted by this Commission.
        Colonel NEWMAN: What becomes of what the Colonial Secretary said, that if the other side do not pay fairly, then, of course, the Government would not pay their side?
        Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Colonial Secretary has given the House his opinion on the matter. I do not anti-
        720
        cipate what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says—
        Colonel NEWMAN: Neither do I!
        Sir H. GREENWOOD: That deals then with the question of expediting the payment of the awards as soon as possible. Now I come to another point. The Commission does not go back to the days of 6trongbow, but deals only with the period between two dates, namely, 21st January, 1919, and 11th July, 1921, the date on which the truce became operative. The Commission, therefore, deals only with the claims and claimants between these two dates, for it is between these two dates that the great majority of the claims arise. Subsequent to 11th July it has been agreed between His Majesty's Government and the Provisional Government that the Criminal Injuries Acts shall apply. In the case of anyone who brings a claim, under the Criminal Injuries Acts, and gets an award from the Courts, the local authorities will be responsible for the payment of the award. [An HON. MEMBER: "What Courts?"] Whichever Courts are functioning at the moment—His Majesty's Courts, but if under the Free State Bill or other Act of Parliament any other Courts are set up, the agreement between the two Governments remains the same. I submit to the House that that is reasonable, and for this reason: the number of lives lost, I regret to say, since 11th July, the date of the truce, is large, something, I believe, about 20, and woundings between 40 and 50. That is most deplorable. On the other hand, the amount of property destroyed has been very small, so the number of cases that will be heard by any Court will be few, though I admit the murder and wounding cases are, of course, hideous events of Irish history. It is essential that any Irish Government should put the responsibility for the payment of the damage to property on the local authority within whose areas the damage has been done. That is the underlying principle of the Criminal Injuries Acts. Therefore I think the Irish Government, is right in throwing the responsibility upon the local rating authority for all damage done to life or property that tomes within the Criminal Injuries Acts, subsequent to the truce of 11th July, 1921.
        Sir J. BUTCHER: Suppose these local authorities to whom the duty of

        721
        paying the victims of these outrages is given do not pay, what are the victims to do?
        Sir H. GREENWOOD: We will look to the Government of Ireland to see that these claims are paid. The two Governments came to an agreement, and we cannot go behind the back of the Irish Government. You must throw it on them. I do not believe any Irish Government will go back upon its Agreement. [An HON. MEMBER: "Go back on England!"]
        Sir F. BANBURY: They cannot carry it out.
        Sir W. DAVISON: The signatories to the Treaty have already gone back on their signatures.
        Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a general discussion on the Irish situation. The Vote does not justify a debate of that kind at all. It is concerned with particular arrangements in certain cases for dealing with the damage to life and property, and we must not go over the whole of the Treaty ground.
        Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is on the presumption of good will between both Governments that the House is asked to vote this sum of money. On that and on no other presumption I submit is it reasonable or possible, and I decline to believe that any Irish Government will seek to refuse to pay awards of its own Courts—for they will be its own by that time—in regard to criminal injuries subsequent to the Truce of 11th July, 1921, I come now to the personal appeal that the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley has made to me with reference to bard cases. There are many, I regret to say, very hard cases.
        Colonel NEWMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say as to whether or not the Irish Government will be prevented from making any conditions of payment, such as the Oath of Allegiance, or living in the locality, rebuilding the houses, and so on?
        Sir H. GREENWOOD: I think the Irish Government will act reasonably, like the Governments of Canada, Australia, and anywhere else, and will not attach conditions to the judicial award of the Commission agreed to by this House and the Government. I think also that the local rating authorities in the 26 counties in
        722
        the South, composed of what were called Sinn Feiners, and presumably now supporting the Provisional Government of Ireland, will fully carry out the letter of the awards. As to the appeal in connection with the hard cases, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend there are many of these. In every case we have endeavoured to make an advance of money to ameliorate the condition of these people who through no fault of their own have fallen victims during the hostilities in Ireland. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman or any other Member can let me know of anyone suffering actual physical hardship by reason of the delay in the payment of any awards I shall do my best to make a cash grant immediately to such person. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. E. McNeill) has left the House, but I think most of his points have been met by the information given by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. Those points that were not so dealt with I think I have dealt with, and it must be remembered that we discussed this particular Vote at great length in Committee. I repeat this is not a gift to the Provisional Government, but it is an agreement with the Provisional Government to give them, by this Vote, and with the consent of the House, this sum of money that was intercepted under the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act from going to the local authorities, in order to pay for personal injuries and damage to property suffered during the last few years in Ireland. The Provisional Government of Ireland, until the beginning of next month, has no source of revenue with which to carry on. This will help the Government to re-establish all their local authorities. It is a reasonable agreement made between the two Governments and I think it is a fair and a reasonable request that this House should help the Provisional Government to establish its local authorities in their normal working, and so take a step which, I think, is a most important step in re-establishing law and order in Southern Ireland.
        5.0 P.M.
        Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I think there are two points, and two only, in this Debate which really are germane to this discussion. The first is whether the method proposed by the Government to pay compensation is justified, and the second is if it is right and proper that this

        723
        House should vote over £ 1,100,000 of the British taxpayers' money to finance the Provisional Government till they are able to get some money of their own. In regard to the first point, I myself am in disagreement with my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the reduction, though on the second point I am entirely in agreement with them. I have some personal interest in the method of the distribution of the compensation, as both under the Commission which is going to decide upon the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded between 1st January, 1919, and 11th July, 1921, I have claims to compensation, and also I am personally claiming substantial compensation for damage done to my property since 11th July of last year. Therefore I would ask my hon. Friends, with whom I am in complete sympathy on the general policy, rather to hesitate before they absolutely condemn the method of payment of compensation in both periods outlined by the Government. I have always disagreed with this Treaty, and I profoundly mistrust it, but, having said that, I think, the facts being as they are, the method put forward by the Government is the soundest under the circumstances. Obviously, it is right and proper that there should be a Commission appointed to review the awards made between the 1st January, 1919, and the 11th July, 1921, because it is common knowledge that many inflated claims were passed which ought never to have been allowed, and it is equally well known that there are a number of claims in which very inadequate compensation was given. If we have this Commission we shall arrive at an approximately just estimate of the amount that ought to be paid over to the sufferers in life and property during that period.
        Take the method proposed after the 11th July, 1921. It is quite true that those of us who had damage done to our property since the 11th July, 1921, must rely upon the good faith and honesty of the local authorities in Ireland. What other course is there open to us except to trust the local authorities? The Bill will be passed giving them power to set up an independent Free State. It is no use crying over spilt milk, and you have to trust the local authorities. I have
        724
        great hope that the Provisional Government and their officers will try and do the right thing by those who have suffered loss, not through the orders of the Provisional Government, but owing to the lawlessness which has become ingrained in those counties owing to the number of law breakers at large who commit arson, and do damage to property and to cattle. These are matters which only time and decent government can put in order. I am perfectly willing to leave my own claim, and I think most other people in Ireland will be ready to do the same, to the good sense and justice of the Courts, whether Free State Courts or Imperial Courts.
        But when I come, as the representative of an English constituency, and a British taxpayer, to view the proposal of the Government, that £1,100,000 of the British taxpayers' money should be handed over now to a body of individuals, however excellent or well meaning, who have very little authority in Ireland, and who may be turned out at the election and a Republican Government established, and who have no legal status at all, I am amazed that the House of Commons sits down with so little protest and apparently allows this Vote to go through unchallenged. We are here as the guardians of the taxpayers, professing a desire for economy, and yet we allow, practically without any protest, except from a few hon. Members, £ 1,100,000 of the British taxpayers' money to be handed over to a body of gentlemen with no legal status, who are admittedly unable to restrain a large body of their followers, and who have not the command of the armed forces in the 26 counties. What guarantee shall we have that the money will he repaid, or that they will ever balance the account? How do we know that when the final settlement comes the Provisional Government may not owe us money? I think we ought to have some answer on this point. The Chief Secretary has given no answer on that point, and he has given us no assurance. I know he said it will be all right eventually, but how does he know that? It seems to me that we ought to object on the grounds of economy to pay over £ 1,100,000 of the British taxpayers' money without any guarantee that any of this money will ever come back.
        Sir J. BUTCHER: I share the regret of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. E. McNeill) that there are not here to-day more representatives of the British taxpayer to see the way in which their money is being voted away in their absence. I think their constituents will do well to ascertain why their representatives are not here to defend the British taxpayer. In the absence of many hon. Members who ought to be here, I think it is vital that we should be informed exactly what the Government are doing. To put it in plain English, the Government are handing over £ 1,000,000, taken out of the pockets of the British taxpayers, to an illegal Government, and one which would never have come into existence at all but for the very outrages which we are deploring to-day. That is not all. This is a totally unjustifiable diversion of money from the victims of these outrages committed by Sinn Feiners into the hands of the Sinn Fein Government. If this Vote is not passed I take it that things will go on as they are at present, and that the moneys will be paid to the persons to whom the local authorities owe the money. The effect of the action of the Government is to take away from the victims of these outrages money that otherwise they would get, and they are handing over the money to a body which would not have come into existence at all but for the action of the Government. In a speech made on the 24th February the Colonial Secretary said, "This is Irish money, and why not give it to Ireland?" The Colonial Secretary was under a very great misapprehension, because it is not Irish money. In the first place it is taken out of the pockets of the British taxpayers.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: And the Irish taxpayers.
        Sir J. BUTCHER: Yes, but the propor-portion is very much smaller and it is an insignificant amount. Let me point out what will happen to this money. If the Irish local authorities will pay their debts and pay the victims of these outrages what they owe them by law, that money could be handed over to the local authorities; but the Government thought that if the Irish local authorities contumaciously refused to pay and would not levy a rate to pay the victims to whom they owe the money, then it is quite right and
        726
        just that the British Government should say, "We will not hand over this money as we should do if you were honest men, but we will pay the persons to whom you owe the money." That would be a perfectly just and reasonable arrangement. So much for the suggestion that it is Irish money, but do not let us be misled by that statement.
        What I want to know is what would the British taxpayer say if he knew that this money which is being taken out of his pockets was being distributed in this way? Would he say it was in accordance with his wishes that it should be handed over to this new government at the expense of the people upon whom these atrocious outrages were committed, both to their persons and their property? Now that you are taking this money and handing it over to the Irish Provisional Government to pay the sufferers, what will happen if the sufferers are not paid the money? Supposing the Irish Government do not choose to pay them, what is to happen? The Colonial Secretary gave us some enlightenment on this point because he said, "If they will not pay these men we shall retaliate and we shall not pay the Sinn Feiners the money which we should otherwise pay to them." The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Sinn Fein Government will not pay our people this money then he will not pay the Sinn Feiners the money which we owe them. That is a good form of reprisal, but it is no satisfaction to the loyal men in Ireland, who do not get the money which is due to them. It is poor comfort to them to be told that although they have not got their money the Sinn Feiners will not get theirs. What I want to know-is how are you going to provide that the men who have been lawfully awarded money for injury to life and property are going to get it. They want to get paid, and I hope when the Colonial Secretary speaks he will deal with that question.
        These men of whom we are speaking have been awarded by competent courts sums of money as compensation for damage to their property. One would have thought those sums would have been paid without these people being put to any further trouble or expense. Nevertheless they have to go through a totally new process owing to an arrangement made with the Provisional Government in undefended cases, and these unfor-

        727
        tunate victims have to go before a new tribunal, bringing all their witnesses in order to establish their claim, and they run the risk of getting their awards disallowed. I do not think that course is either reasonable or just, because they have already established their claims before a competent court, and they should not have to go through all through this trouble again. If the parties concerned did not take the trouble to dispute the claims put forward, why should the people who were prepared to prove their claims suffer for it? Surely if anyone should suffer it ought to be the people who did not take the trouble to come forward to dispute the claims. Therefore I would urge the Colonial Secretary to reconsider that matter, and to say that, once these people can show that they have been awarded compensation by a competent court they shall not be put to the expense of re-establishing their claims: also I hope he will say that these moneys with which we are dealing to-day, and which would, in the ordinary way, be available to pay these compensation claims, shall not be handed over to Sinn Feiners over whom we have no control.
        Mr. J. JONES: Like the hon. and learned Member who has just addressed the House, I happen to be an Irishman representing an English constituency, and, therefore, I can speak with very little authority on the subject. But it does seem to me that this financial Vote is being used as a tag upon which to hang an attack on the Government Bill for the establishment of an Irish Free State. What is the position? As I understand it—I may be ignorant of the law, but the law and the prophets, are very nearly connected—this money is to be voted to help the Provisional Government of Ireland to function. Every Member of this House knows that in Ireland at the present moment there is no possibility of functioning in the matter of, Government, unless substantial financial assistance is granted. I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that we passed an Act of a similar character at the conclusion of the South African War, and we then voted £ 2,000,000 to people who had been in arms against us. To do what? To help them to carry on the functions of Government. What is going to happen if this particular Vote is re-
        728
        fused? It means that the people who are against constitutional government in Ireland are going to be supreme, and those who pretend to believe in the rights of property are going to vote themselves out of office. This Vote is not being given to Sinn Feiners. Its object is to compensate those who have lost anything as a consequence of the troubles that have occurred in Ireland. That is what I understand.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: No. The money is to be given to the local authorities to enable them to carry on work which Parliament meant them to do. The money which they should have had was intercepted in order to pay a proportion of the claims for damages.
        Mr. JONES: That is another way of saying the same thing. I happen to be Irish and I know something about it. Who are the people who have lost and who require compensation? In a very large number of cases, as the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit, they are people who were loyal to the Government. They were constitutionalists. They have lost their property; their premises have been sacked; and we are now granting local authorities in Ireland, for the purpose of functioning, a certain amount of money to meet the demands made upon them. That is what is being done, and the constitutional Bolshevists and Tall-hats, are saying, "You must not pay this money, because the Government in the South of Ireland have a different kind of complexion to the Government in Northern Ireland." What is happening in Northern Ireland at the present moment? Compensation is going to be given, but not to Roman Catholics or Nationalists in Northern Ireland. Have we any guarantee that any will be given to them? A great deal of fuss is being made in this House this evening about the compensation to be given.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: £ 1,500,000 is to be placed at the disposal of the authorities in Northern Ireland for impartial distribution in aid of making good damages, irrespective of party or religion.
        Mr. JONES: I can see impartiality being displayed in Northern Ireland!
        Captain CRAIG: Will the hon. Gentlemen define what he means by that last remark?
        Mr. JONES: I can give details.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: Not on this Debate, I hope.
        Mr. JONES: If challenged, I will give details.
        Captain CRAIG: You are challenged.
        Mr. JONES: I believe that in Southern Ireland there will be greater impartiality displayed than in Northern Ireland.
        Captain CRAIG: It is easy to say that. What proof have you of it? If the hon. Gentleman knows he has no opportunity of proving his words here, he ought not to make statements and false accusations.
        Mr. JONES: I am not making accusations; I am only pointing out the fact. I say that Roman Catholics in the North of Ireland, and especially in the North East corner of Ireland, stand as much chance of getting justice as a celluloid cat has of passing through hell.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: Celluloid?
        Mr. JONES: Yes, you know more about celluloid than I do. You are an aeroplane man, I am not. I say that this money is going to the very people whom hon. Gentlemen who are Apposing this Vote pretend to agree with.
        Captain CRAIG: It is not.
        Mr. JONES: The property owners in Southern Ireland are mainly the people whom hon. Members opposite believe in. They are the loyalists, so called. [An HON. MEMBER: "Small farmers!"] They are mainly constitutionalists. The small farmers are the men I want to back. They are, at any rate in the southern part of Ireland, constitutionalists. They are not revolutionaries; they are not republicans. They are men out to get a form of government based on real democracy. They are now being told that they are not to be compensated for the losses they have sustained, simply because certain Members of this House do not believe in the Constitution which is being granted to Southern Ireland. If the Provisional Government for Southern Ireland is supported as it ought to be by the Members of this House, Ireland will shortly become a united nation, and part and parcel of a great Commonwealth. Yet bigotry is so strong that this Vote is being objected
        730
        to by men who call themselves constitutionalists, but who, in fact, are the biggest revolutionaries and the biggest Bolshevists in this country.
        Sir F. BANBURY: It is very extraordinary what a wrong interpretation is put upon this Vote by many Members of the House. In Committee we were told that if we rejected the Vote we should deprive the people of Southern Ireland of compensation. Apparently the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) does not entertain the same view, for he has told us that the money is to be given in order to enable the Irish Provisional Government to carry on. That is rather contradictory to another statement of his that the money will go in compensation to small Irish farmers who have been loyal. It is not going in compensation to anyone, whether they be Loyalists, Disloyalists, Catholics, or Protestants. What is going to happen to this money is this: If hon. Members will look at the Estimate, they will see the item, "Grant in aid of miscellaneous services to be administered by the Provisional Government, £ 1,130,000." This means that we are now voting out of the pockets of the British taxpayer £ 1,130,000 to be handed over to the Provisional Government. It is quite true that in Committee the Colonial Secretary stated that the rebels have blown up roads in the Southern part of Ireland. I believe it has been admitted also that in some cases our troops, for military purposes, have done the same sort of thing. This money, we are informed, is to be devoted to paying the rebels for damage they themselves have done. That seems to me the most extraordinary solution of that great wonderful arrangement by which peace and goodwill was to descend on Ireland, and by which Great Britain was to be relieved of all her troubles in connection with the Irish question. What, in fact, has happened is that peace has not descended upon Ireland, but that the British taxpayer has got to pay.
        The right hon. Gentleman has also told us that this money is to go to the Provisional Government, in order to enable the local authorities to repair the damage that has been done. What guarantee have we that they will do that with the money? This £ 1,130,000 is going to be handed over to the Republican Government, and once they have got it, you may be sure they will do what they like with

        731
        it. They may even purchase arms and ammunition to be used against my hon. Friend below the gangway—the Ulster Members. They may devote the money to any purpose they choose—either to attacking de Valera, or to attacking my hon. Friends from Ulster—more probably the latter. Therefore, I strongly object to this Vote. I object that in these hard times the Government should put their hands into my pocket in order to pay these Irish rebels for the mischief that they have done, and that the Government should ask us to vote this money with the full knowledge that it will not be devoted to the purpose for which it is asked, but that it will be used by the Irish Government to aid them in procuring the particular form of Government they desire. The right hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether I am to call him the late or the present Chief Secretary, perhaps it would be more convenient to speak of him as the Provisional Chief Secretary—intimated that the Government was going to make a cash payment to the Irish loyalists in cases of hardship which might be brought to their notice. From what fund is he going to make these cash payments? What authority has he to make them? The Government seem to think that they have only to say that they will make a cash payment, and that they can do it without asking our permission I What are we here for? It is to grant money. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to make cash payments. He is not going to make them out of his own pocket—he is going to make them out of the pocket of the British taxpayer, and therefore he is bound to come down here and ask our permission before he does anything of the kind. Then the right hon. Gentleman said it must be remembered that eventually there will be a grand settlement, a grand balance sheet. I say, let us see this balance sheet before we pay anything. Surely that is a business proposition. If you have certain claims against A, and A has certain claims against you, you do not begin by taking money out of your pocket and handing it over to A before you have seen the balance sheet and know whether A is going to pay your claims against him. In this case, however, we are going to pay these claims first, before we have seen
        732
        the balance sheet or made any arrangements as to the honouring of the results of that balance sheet. We do not know who will be in power in Ireland when this beautiful balance sheet comes out. It may be Mr. de Valera, it may be a Republic, or it may be that we shall have reconquered Ireland ourselves, as I firmly believe we shall have to do. Therefore, a more unbusinesslike arrangement was never submitted to any House of Parliament. Might I ask the Colonial Secretary, who, I understand, is going to reply, was this payment part of any arrangement made at the celebrated interview in Downing Street some short time ago? I have no reason for supposing that it was—
        Mr. CHURCHILL: Which interview?
        Sir F. BANBURY: There was a midnight or early morning interview.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: Do you mean when the Agreement was signed?
        Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: No; this arrangement was made about two months after that, as the result of a long discussion following on the approval of the Treaty by the members of the Southern Irish Parliament.
        Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to hear that. I earnestly hope that the few hon. Members who have heard the discussion will assist us, and especially the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Raeburn). I hope he will show his desire to protect the interests of his Scottish constituents, who are the last people who will be anxious to spend their money in helping the Irish rebels, and I hope that if he has listened to the Debate, and understands the real question before the House, he will assist us by voting with us.
        Mr. GWYNNE: I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and the only satisfactory statement I have heard so far from the Government Benches was that of the Chief Secretary that, if any strong cases of hardship were brought to his notice, such as those of people who have been driven out of the country and awarded compensation but cannot get it, he will see that they get payment. I am glad to hear that, but I would remind him that I have myself recently brought cases to his notice which come under that category, and so far nothing has

        733
        happened. I could bring many more cases now, of men and women who are in this country practically starving, and who, although they have had large sums awarded to them, cannot get enough even to buy their own lunch. I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary whether, when he replies, he will enlighten us a little as to this money which we are voting. During the Committee stage he talked about it as Irish money. Does he still say that it is Irish money? He nods his head. If it is, I should object very strongly to voting it, on the ground that it ought to be used for the purpose for which it was intercepted, namely, for paying to loyalists compensation which is due to them. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that this money is not Irish money. I take it that it is money collected from Ireland, in the same way in which our own taxes are collected in this country, and going into the general fund, and it is only due to Ireland when the Irish local authorities have carried out certain undertakings.
        In this country, and I assume also in Ireland, local authorities make certain expenditures and get Grants-in-Aid towards them. They have to keep up the roads, for instance, and the money is only paid to them after the roads have been made or maintained up to a certain standard, and certificates to that effect have been given. In the same way, Grants-in-Aid are given to local authorities for the upkeep of workhouses and other institutions, but that money is only paid after it has been certified to be due. In the case of these grants for roads, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the money has been spent, and whether the Government have had certificates showing that it is due? Or is it, on the other hand, merely a general payment on account of what might be due after the roads have been made up? My information is that the money was withheld, and these works did not continue. The roads were not made up, and in some cases the workhouses were closed. If that be the case, then this money has not yet become due, and therefore it is not Irish money. The right hon. gentleman during the Committee stage said that this money was for the purpose of enabling the Provisional Government to function, or, to use his own words, to help to deal with the economic situation of the country, and to meet certain minor contingencies inci-
        734
        dental to the erection of the Provisional Government. If that money has been made over to the Provisional Government, it has not been made over to the local authorities, and therefore I say that we have no right this afternoon to vote this money to the Provisional Government, who, as has been said before, have no legal status at the present time. The payment is not a legal payment, and it is certainly not just, as far as the loyalists are concerned, to tell them that they can wait while this money, which was earmarked for their benefit, is handed over to the so-called Provisional Government.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the House will now be ready to come to a conclusion on this subject. The position really is quite a simple one. The moneys which Parliament had voted for local services under the Local Government Authorities in Ireland were intercepted by special action on our part during the conflict, in order to enable us to exact from those local authorities funds out of which compensation could be paid to persons, and to a lesser extent on account of property, in respect of injuries received. This money, having been intercepted, was paid over, and still larger sums were paid over by us to persons on account of damage to life and limb, and to a certain extent on account of damage to property, so that a portion of the victims have received compensation, either in whole or in part, out of this money which we intercepted from the local authorities.
        Mr. GWYNNE: Why, if it was intercepted, have we to vote it now?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I am going to try to explain. This money, as I have said, having been intercepted, was handed over—not the identical coin, but that sum, indeed a still larger sum—to persons who had suffered by the devastation and depredations of the conflict. Then the Truce and the Treaty came into being, and we decided that the payment in respect of injuries done to this or that party shall be settled on a certain basis by the Compensation Commission, and paid over by whichever party was responsible for the damage, and that the accounts, when made up, shall be credited or debited to either country in the financial settlement between the two countries. This instalment of compensation which has been paid to loyalists—I

        735
        use the term to explain what I mean—is only a small proportion of the general question of compensation for malicious injuries. There are considerably larger sums which, no doubt, will be returned by the Commission shortly to be appointed, either against the Irish Free State Government or against the British Government. This is only a small proportion, perhaps one-fifth or one-sixth, of what ultimately will be the total sum required to compensate for damage on one side or the other. We felt, however, that it would not be convenient to defray this small portion of the compensation charges, now that there have been a Truce and a Treaty, out of funds intercepted from the local authorities, but that it would be in accordance with proper accounting and good financial arrangements that the sums which Parliament had voted to the local authorities should now be allowed to resume their normal flow for the purpose of overtaking work which ought to have been done before, and that the question of compensation should be dealt with as a whole in the general financial settlement between the two countries. Therefore, we are not asking the House to vote money for compensation at all at the present time, but to release funds, hitherto earmarked for compensation, which have been paid, and which belong properly to the local government authorities in Ireland, and to allow those authorities to resume their normal services.
        Sir J. BUTCHER: Is not this money going to be paid over to the Provisional Government to do what they like with, and not to the local authorities?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: That is so. Of course, after this Government gets plenary powers, when the present Bill is through, it will have control over this money, but our belief is that the money will be allocated to the local authorities. That is what it is desired for. After all, there is great unemployment in Ireland—not so great as in the industrial districts of England, but very great unemployment for an agricultural country; and it is in the interests of that Government, and in all our interests, that the largest proportion of the population shall be at work, and that the roads of the country and other public works shall go forward. We certainly have every expecta-
        736
        tion that this money will be transmitted to the local authorities, to enable them to catch up the really shocking arrears in local administration which have arisen out of the necessary conditions of the conflict. At the same time, I make no concealment of the fact that, once self-government is given, it involves all the responsibility and discretion which attach to it. It involves the right to act wisely or unwisely, to take a reasonable course of action or to take an unreasonable, foolish, and unwise course of action. It would be foolish of us, however, to assume that an unwise or foolish use will be made of this money. Anyhow, pursuing that line of argument, if the Bill which is passing through Parliament passes, as I expect it will, and receives the Royal Assent in the course of next week, the Irish Provisional Government will be masters not only of this £ 1,100,000 but of the whole finances of Southern Ireland. Our method of treating this subject is to render to the local authorities what Parliament had intended should be rendered to them for the service of this year, and to deal with compensation on the general basis which I have already fully explained on this Vote.
        I had an opportunity of receiving a deputation, which was not introduced to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman), but which he was good enough to direct to my address, and I had every opportunity of learning the extraordinarily difficult position in which many of these unfortunate people have been placed by the cruel injuries to their property and by the long delay—the law's delays—in securing them compensation. I am most anxious that that process shall be accelerated, but no longer by anticipating the revenues which are properly allocated to Irish local government. I am most anxious that the Commission for dealing with compensation shall set to work at the earliest moment. I hope before the end of next week the personnel of that Commission will be announced and that it will begin its work at once. The hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) says what a one-sided arrangement this is. The loyalist whose castle is burnt receives an I.O.U. from the Provisional Government. The rebel whose cottage has been destroyed as a military reprisal will obtain compensation from the large and ample funds of the British Exchequer.

        737
        That is not the picture I made of it at all. I see this Commission sitting in Dublin, with subsidiary agencies throughout Ireland, and holding, if necessary, special inquiries in this country and making awards. I see these awards being defrayed, in a considerable proportion, as they are given by the British and Irish Provisional Governments. Certainly I expect that the Irish Provisional Government will keep pace step by step with our march in these matters. Certainly I do not contemplate that we should pay our share to their people and they should pay no corresponding share to ours. What is the use of proceeding on the assumption that they will continually break faith? [Interruption.] I have not had the experience that they have broken faith with us in any detail as far as I have seen since we have entered into agreement with them.
        Mr. GWYNNE: Some of them are men who have signed the Treaty.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: One particular man, it is true, but I am talking of the Irish Provisional Government, the men who are carrying on, and I certainly do not contemplate that a Government like that, which is interested enormously in the proper liquidation of these compensation claims, would repudiate their part of the bargain and if you assume that they will do that, you must assume that everything will end in ruin and chaos.
        Captain STANLEY WILSON: It looks like it.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it does, and I hope my hon. Friend does not hope it does. But if you were to assume that the Provisional Government was going to repudiate its obligations our resources would not be by any means completely exhausted. We could put the money, which is undoubtedly due by us, to people who have been injured by the Crown forces and whose creameries have been destroyed by the Crown forces in the course of the struggle into a fund out of which we could defray the losses of our own people, who would receive the compensation to which they are entitled on the other side of the account. I do not see any possible difficulty in adjusting this matter oven on the basis of a complete breakdown, but I do not at all expect that there will be a complete breakdown. On the contrary, I think it is a probable estimate that the Irish Provisional Government will punctiliously discharge its legal and financial duties under the Treaty and under the Bill that is now passing through Parliament, and in that event I hope during the course of the next few months substantial payments will be made to persons who have suffered injuries inflicted by one side upon the other during the Irish struggle. I hope the House will now permit us to get this Vote.
        Question put, "That '£ 1,130,000' stand part of the Resolution."
        The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 46.

        Division No. 59.]

        AYES.

        [5.57 p.m.

        Adamson, Ht. Hon. William

        Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

        Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

        Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

        Burdon, Colonel Rowland

        Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

        Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

        Cairns, John

        Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

        Amnion, Charles George

        Carr, W. Theodore

        Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

        Baird, Sir John Lawrence

        Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

        Farquharson, Major A. C.

        Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

        Cautley, Henry Strother

        Fell, Sir Arthur

        Balfour, Rt. Hon. Sir A. J. (City, Lon.)

        Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

        Flides, Henry

        Barlow, Sir Montague

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

        Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

        Barnett, Major Richard W.

        Cheyne, Sir William Watson

        FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

        Barnston, Major Harry

        Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

        Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

        Barrand, A. R.

        Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

        Ford, Patrick Johnston

        Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

        Coats, Sir Stuart

        Forestier-Walker, L.

        Beauchamp, Sir Edward

        Cockerill, BriGadler-General G. K.

        Fraser, Major Sir Keith

        Beck, Sir Arthur Cecil

        Cohen, Major J. Brunel

        Galbraith, Samuel

        Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

        Conway, Sir W. Martin

        Ganzoni, Sir John

        Bethell, Sir John Henry

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

        Gardiner, James

        Betterton, Henry B.

        Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

        Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

        Birchall, J. Dearman

        Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

        Gilbert, James Daniel

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

        Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

        Gillis, William

        Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

        Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

        Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

        Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

        Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

        Glyn, Major Ralph

        Brassey, H. L. C.

        Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

        Goff, Sir R. Park

        Breese, Major Charles E.

        Dockrell, Sir Maurice

        Gould, James C.

        Brown, Major D. C.

        Doyle, N. Grattan

        Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

        Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

        Edgar, Clifford B.

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

        Bruton, Sir James

        Edge, Captain Sir William

        Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

        Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

        Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

        Greenwood, William (Stockport)

        Grundy, T. W.

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

        Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

        Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon Frederick E.

        Lyle, C. E. Leonard

        Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

        Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

        Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

        Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

        Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

        Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

        Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

        Hancock, John George

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

        Seager, Sir William

        Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

        Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

        Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

        Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

        McMicking, Major Gilbert

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

        Harris, Sir Henry Percy

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

        Sitch, Charles H.

        Hartshorn, Vernon

        Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

        Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

        Haslam, Lewis

        MacVeagh, Jeremiah

        Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

        Hayday, Arthur

        Mallalieu, Frederick William

        Steel, Major S. Strang

        Hayward, Evan

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

        Stevens, Marshall

        Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

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

        Sugden, W. H.

        Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

        Marks, Sir George Croydon

        Sutherland, Sir William

        Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

        Mason, Robert

        Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

        Hills, Major John Waller

        Morrison, Hugh

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

        Hinds, John

        Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

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

        Hirst, G. H.

        Murchison, C. K.

        Thomas-Stanford, Charles

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

        Naylor, Thomas Ellis

        Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

        Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

        Neal, Arthur

        Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, west]

        Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

        Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

        Holmes, J. Stanley

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

        Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

        Hood, Sir Joseph

        Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

        Thorpe, Captain John Henry

        Hopkins, John W. W.

        Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

        Tillett, Benjamin

        Hotchkin, Cantain Stafford Vere

        O'Connor, Thomas P.

        Townley, Maximilian G.

        Howard, Major S. G.

        Crmsby-Gore, Hon. William

        Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

        Hudson, R. M.

        Parker, James

        Tryon, Major George Clement

        Hurd, Percy A.

        Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

        Wallace, J.

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

        Pearce, Sir William

        Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

        Jephcott, A. R.

        Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

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

        Jesson, C.

        Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

        Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

        Johnstone, Joseph

        Perkins, Walter Frank

        Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

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

        Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

        Waring, Major Walter

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

        Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

        Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

        Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

        Pratt, John William

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

        Kennedy, Thomas

        Pretyman, Rt. Hon, Ernest G.

        Wilson, James (Dudley)

        Kenyon, Barnet

        Purchase, H. G.

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

        Kidd. James

        Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

        Kiley, James Daniel

        Rattan, Peter Wilson

        Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

        King, Captain Henry Douglas

        Randies, Sir John Scurrah

        Yeo, Sir Alfred William

        Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

        Rankin. Captain James Stuart

        Young, E. H. (Norwich)

        Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

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

        Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

        Lawson, John James

        Renwick, Sir George

        Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

        Lloyd, George Butler

        Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

        Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

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

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

        Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

        Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

        Loseby, Captain C. E.

        Rose, Frank H.

        McCurdy.

        Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

        Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

        NOES.

        Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

        Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

        Oman, Sir Charles William C.

        Balfour, George (Hampstead)

        Gretton, Colonel John

        Pennefather, De Fonblanque

        Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

        Poison, Sir Thomas A.

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

        Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

        Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

        Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

        Reid, D. D.

        Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

        James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

        Remnant, Sir James

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

        Jameson, John Gordon

        Stewart, Gershom

        Butcher, Sir John George

        Lindsay, William Arthur

        Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

        Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

        Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

        Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

        Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)

        Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

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

        Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

        Windsor, Viscount

        Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

        McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

        Wolmer, Viscount

        Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

        Macquisten, F. A.

        Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

        Curzon, Captain Viscount

        Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

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

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

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

        Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

        Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

        Mr. R. Gwynne and Sir R. Cooper.

        Foot, Isaac

        Sixth Resolution read a Second time.

    REPORT [21st March].

      AIR ESTIMATES, 1922–23.
      Resolutions reported,

      1. "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 31,176, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923."

      740

      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £ 3,781,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923."

      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £ 1,826,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the "Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923."

      741

      4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,530,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923."

      5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,295,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923."

      AIE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.
      6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for additional expenditure on the following Air Services, namely:—

      Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the

      £

      £

      Air Force

      303,400

      Vote 2. Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport

      110,700

      Vote 3. Technical and Warlike Stores

      234,000

      Vote 4. Works, Buildings, and Lands

      111,000

      Vote 9. Experimental and Research Services

      43,450

      802,550

      Deduct Excess Appropriations-in-Aid and Surpluses on Votes 6 and 9

      802,540

      Net amount

      10"

      First to Fifth Resolutions read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Consideration of the First to Fifth Resolutions be postponed."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
      Mr. L. MALONE: May I ask why these Resolutions are being postponed?
      6.0 P.M.
      Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Patronage Secretary to the Treasury): It is in accordance with the pledge I gave that the second Order for to-day should be the Air Supplementary Estimate. It is in order to carry out that pledge by postponing the Air Estimates which will be taken immediately after we have concluded the discussion on the Supplementary Estimate.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. WALSH: There has been an Amendment in my name to reduce the Vote by £ 100. The reason for my action is the very remarkable amount of money asked for in connection with the recent coal dispute. A sum, £ 309,100, is asked for to meet the expenditure incurred by the Air Force during the three months that dispute lasted. This comes as a very great surprise to those of us who took part in that dispute. A large number of my hon. Friends are like myself, in that they hold a dual position as Members of this House and as miners' agents, responsible to the men, and I have inquired whether during the whole of this dispute, extending over three months, a single aeroplane was seen in any part of the mining kingdom. It would not be in order to discuss the policy which is responsible for this Vote. That policy was agreed to in April of last year, and therefore we are limited entirely to the question of the expense incurred. The Paper which the right hon. Gentleman has supplied is remarkable for the scantiness of its information. There is not a single word as to the number of men employed in the Air Force for this particular business, not a word about the number of machines, not a word as to the places where the machines were employed. The only information that is given to us is something as to pay and allowances and as to clothing and provisions. There is not a single word as to where the performances took place, where the men were stationed, where the bar racks were erected, and under what conditions the men were called upon to perform their duties. The House is entitled, before they consent to the passing of this substantial sum of money, to some information as to the conditions under which the duties were performed, the number of men engaged, and the part of the country where their services were requisitioned. On all these points we are in a state of blank ignorance.
      If there is one thing upon which everybody is agreed, no matter how many be the points on which they differ, it is that the most admirable order was maintained throughout the whole mining kingdom, and this was all the more notable having regard to the immense number of those engaged in the dispute, the strong feelings that wore evolved, and the great tribulations which many people suffered. No body of people in any dispute in

      743
      history exercised such restraint as the miners, and yet we are asked to consent to the payment of £ 309,000 for aeroplane services, although there is not a single resident miners' agent in the whole kingdom who knows of a single place in which any one of these machines was engaged. It would have been a very good thing if they had been seen. One can quite well imagine that when there is a dispute three months unemployment is apt to develop in the minds of the people discontent and laissez faire. They are sick and tired of lounging about, middle-aged and elderly people could not play football, and there was not money for indulging in any other kind of games. It would, therefore, have been very nice if we could have seen some of the aeroplanes, for which this House is called upon to pay, performing interesting evolutions in any part of the mining world. We should have looked with a great deal of interest upon their performances. It would have relieved the men's minds, and would probably have lessened the tension. The Prime Minister paid a high tribute to the wonderful restraint and the social order and discipline preserved by the miners, and a similar tribute was paid by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why then the necessity for this large expenditure on the Air Force in connection with that dispute.
      There is an item for £ 20,000 for transport alone. I cannot imagine how such a sum as that could be incurred for the transport of people required to give their services in the Air Force, which, I understand, could only have been for reconnoitring purposes. So far as the preservation of peace or the restoration of peace in the case of social disorders were concerned, the Government never intended to use missiles from the air to break up meetings. That, I am quite sure, was never in the minds of the Government. They had adequate police forces, and they had adequate military forces to come to the assistance of the police if necessary. Therefore, we take it for granted that there never was the slightest intention to use the Air Force in anything like a military sense as against a hostile population. Why, then, this expense of £ 20,000, and why an expenditure of £ 188,000 for pay and
      744
      personal allowances, especially when it was known after the first four weeks of the dispute, at any rate to anybody with the slightest sense of perspective, that the miners were not out for disturbance, that they were not out to inflict anything like violence upon the general community. They were a self-contained and restrained body of men, and there was not the slightest prospect of any attack upon the social order of the community. At the outset, fears predominated in the minds of the Government, and rumours were wildly spread that this dispute or lockout was due to Bolshevism, and all kind of bogies were invoked.
      After the first four weeks it must have been plain to the dullest mind that there was no necessity for this force, no necessity for reconnoitring, which could be the only possible object for which this force could be brought into play, and that, so far as it consisted of established men, the force could have been put to its proper purpose, and this expenditure avoided. Before a Vote is submitted, I would ask the Minister to give an indication of those disturbed areas in which it was necessary to bring the services of the force into play, and some idea as to where those people were quartered, and as to the numbers engaged. I notice that the pay to personnel of officers amounted to £ 22,000, and that to the men £ 188,000. Having regard to the difference between the pay of the officers and the men, it would seem, so far as one can calculate, that there was one officer to about every 10 men. If this force was brought into effective service, at the beginning of the dispute, and continued in effective service until the dispute ended, there must have been, at the very least, some 4,000 men engaged. It is difficult to understand where those 4,000 men were secreted. There must have been, I take it, 400 officers. It is difficult to know where the pilots were.
      In the absence of any detailed information the only conclusion we can come to is that the coal dispute and the miners are again being made the bugbear for a very large amount of money which is being debited against them. It is impossible to say that this large sum, £ 309,000, can be properly charged against any service that was really required or exercised during the three months of the dispute. The miners' dispute is made

      745
      responsible for everything. There would have been most flourishing trade but for the coal dispute, and there would have been magnificent exports to foreign markets. Nine months after the time, and on a second Estimate, because a previous Estimate was submitted, we are asked for this amount of £ 309,000. No man with any knowledge of the mining districts and the conditions in which the dispute was conducted, can see where even £10 of the money was actually expended. It does seem to us that this money has never been properly expended during the continuance of this dispute, and there is not a single one of us with dual responsibility as members of this House and as miners' agents in our own area, from the North of Scotland to South Wales, who knows where a single penny of this money has been expended. In those circumstances, surely the hon. Gentleman can give, us a great deal more information than is at present vouchsafed. I beg to move the reduction of which I have given notice.
      Sir EDMUND BARTLEY - DENNISS: On a point of Order. On this Supplementary Estimate, which is for a sum of £ 10, I submit that the hon. Member is not in order, because you cannot reduce a sum of £ 10 by £ 100.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I was just going to say that Mr. Deputy-Speaker had put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." Therefore the Vote must take place on the sum of £ 10.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The questions put by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) are perfectly proper. The whole discussion of policy does not come up to-day, as the House gave its sanction to what the Government asked for as far back as last April. But as to the service which the Air Force was to render, I am glad to be able to give further information. The numbers, roughly, were about 5,000 men. In reference to the question as to the proportion of officers and men, I may point out that in this Service the proportion of officers to men has always been very high, because all the piloting and all the observing are done by officers, and therefore the proportion of officers to men is higher than in any other Service. In reference to the functions which the
      746
      Air Force was to perform on that occasion, there was no intention whatever on the part of the Government to use them in their military capacity. Their functions were to be mail transporters, to set up in case of necessity a system by which postal communications could be maintained by air. They were also ready to undertake by means of their wireless apparatus the same kind of work in connection with telegrams. They also were prepared to act as carriers for communications and the transport of people rapidly and securely from one end of the country to another. They were placed in their old aerodromes, and no fresh aerodromes were prepared. These reservists were gathered in the different stations in different parts of England, and occupied their time, I am glad to say, not in taking part in the dispute, but in re-fitting a certain number of extra machines, rubbing up their deficiencies, and generally making themselves useful. The number of machines was slightly increased owing to the ability of the men in our various shops.
      That answers the chief point made by my hon. Friend. But I would ask the House to allow me to answer a few criticisms which were put forward the other night by hon. Members, some of whom are here, while others are not. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) complained of the system of presenting the Estimate. I do not think that he will feel inclined to blame me in particular for the system. It is what has been decided on by the Treasury as the method to be adopted in presenting supplementaries to the House. He asked why is it necessary to undertake the transfer of certain savings to the Air Force on the Estimate. The answer is that having obtained Treasury sanction, we wish to transfer them as quickly as possible so as to get on the high road to effecting the considerable annual economy which we are quite certain to get as soon as the transfer is obtained. There is no economy in delaying this transfer, and I am glad to say that we can already look forward to a definite saving of some £15,000 a year.
      Sir F. BANBURY: The point is, that it was put on this Vote instead of an the proper Estimates, which will come in course of payment within a few days,

      747
      in order to make out that the sum spent in 1922–23 is less than it ought to be by this amount.
      Captain GUEST: It is Parliamentary form that attention should be drawn on a supplementary to new works so as to point out a departure in policy as compared with that dealt with in the Estimates presented at the beginning of the year. The right hon. Baronet also asked how the sum of £ 309,000 expended in the course of the coal dispute, was made up. If he will look at page 4 of the Estimates, he will see the details for pay, food, supplies, and transport, of the reservists who were called up. The hon. Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy) was anxious to have an explanation about the Egyptian stations, and though he is not present, I would like to reply to him as other Members are interested in the question. We have undertaken nothing new. We have merely tried to make the old war stations fit and easily habitable. They are Abusueir, Aboukir, and Heliopolis. The money is expended on keeping them in good condition for the aeroplanes and for officers and men, and is far less than was asked for last year. This reply also answers the hon. Member for the Rutland Division (Lieut.-Colonel Willoughby). The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) who is not present, also complained that he did not like the procedure adopted under this system, which I have done my best to explain to the House this afternoon and on Tuesday night, and I trust, therefore, that the House will now allow me to have this Vote.
      Mr. WALSH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to the number of new men who were employed in respect of the coal emergency dispute, because only the new men can be charged for under this particular heading?
      Captain GUEST: There is no charge in this Supplementary Estimate except for the Reservists who were called up.
      Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: It was perhaps rather unwise for the Labour party on this Resolution to call attention to the very large sums of money which the coal strike cost this country. This is only a Supplementary Estimate for the Air Force. The whole of the
      748
      reserves were called up, and what the total amount is I cannot say at the moment. They might consider, if that amount had been taken, and the total had been used to reduce the duty on tea, what a comfort it would have been to the wives and families of the working classes in this country. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) is aware that at the moment when the coal strike was threat ened the miners did their best to induce the transport workers and the railway workers to follow suit. If that had happened—
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is the very question that has already been ruled out of order. Authority for the employment of these men was given as far back as April of last year. We cannot now reopen the question of policy.
      Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: I will soon bring my remarks to a close. The hon. Member for Ince sought to prove that it was quite unnecessary to call out the Air Force reserves at the time of the coal dispute. I would answer by saying that at that time, if the transport workers and the railway workers had come out, it would have been necessary to keep up communications by means of aircraft for the carrying of the mails and generally for keeping the government of the country going. No one for a moment thought that the great body of miners were disloyal, but there were considerable numbers of people who were out for revolution, who certainly would have joined in any general strike, and that would have made the situation very serious.
      Mr. MOSLEY: The Secretary of State for Air has offered an explanation of the very mystifying factor in this Supplementary Estimate, but in some ways the explanation is even more puzzling than the item as it stands in its original form. The right hon. Gentleman said it was proposed to mobilise the Air Force in order to conduct the postal service of the country. As far as I know, there was never any question of the postal service going on strike at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "The railways."] The hon. Member for Oldham (Sir E. Bartley-Denniss) said that the railwaymen and the transport workers might have gone on strike, but the Government, as we have been informed on many occasions, had made adequate preparations to deal

      749
      with that particular situation. Obviously, it the railway system and the transport system had completely broken down, the entire economic life of the country, which is far more important than the carriage of mails, would have broken down also, while, if it could have been conducted by improvised assistance, as was proposed, then also the mails could have been carried by railway and road, and a very grave expenditure would have been avoided. The hon. Member for Ince points out that three weeks before the calling out of the Air Force Reserves the Triple Alliance strike was definitely "off." I would be grateful to the Secretary of State for Air if he would tell us the exact dates of the calling off of the Triple Alliance strike and the calling up of the Air Force Reserves.
      Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: After the Reserves had been called up.
      Mr. MOSLEY: The hon. Member for Ince states definitely that the Triple Alliance strike was called off three weeks before the calling up of the Reserves. We ought to clear up any doubt on the subject. The Secretary of State for Air made another point. He said it was or might have been necessary for these Air Force Reserves to transport men engaged in some vital work from one part of the country to the other. There can have been very few cases of that kind. Why could not the ordinary establishment of the Air Force have undertaken the duty? Why could not the ordinary establishment even have undertaken the postal service or such of the postal service as was vital to the life of the country in the event of these contingencies having actually occurred?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That also is a point which was settled in April of last year, when the Vote authorising the calling up of these Reserves was agreed to by the House. It is not open to hon. Members to review that question at the present moment.
      Mr. MOSLEY: Are we not free to contend that this money was wasted in that the calling up of the Reserves was not necessary?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Not on that ground. The hon. Member may claim that the Reserves having been called up, the
      750
      money spent on their pay, or whatever it is, has been wrongly spent, but the policy was decided nearly a year ago.
      Mr. MOSLEY: Then I hope the Secretary of State will be able to afford us some further explanation on the points in question and will be able to prove to the satisfaction of the House that it was necessary to call up these men.
      Mr. J. JONES: I am not a miner or a railwayman, I represent general labourers. Most of them have to earn their breakfast before they can eat it, and generally they have more dinner times than dinners. We are always the victims of these industrial disputes. Therefore we do our best to avoid them. We try as far as we can to arrange that the workers, who suffer most, shall not be the victims of these industrial disasters, and we want to know why we are called upon to pay these enormous sums of money for providing opportunities for other people to exhaust the possibilities of luxury. An hon. Member opposite suggested that the trade unions were responsible for the troubles existing in the industrial world. This money is an insurance against what the Government imagined to be a revolution. It is £ 309,000 in the case of the miners. Suppose that we grant the fact, if it can be called a fact, that the miners were responsible for the stoppage in the coal trade. I ask, then, who is responsible for the stoppage to-day of a million men engaged in shipbuilding and engineering? It is not the men, for the overwhelming majority of the men have asked for a Court of Inquiry into the dispute. The nation will be called upon to spend probably another £ 500,000 to provide military organisation for beating down the workers in a dispute that has not been caused by labour, but by the people whom the hon. Member for Oldham represents. He is one of the big men of the Federation of British Industries.
      Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: I have nothing whatever to do with the Federation. I am a simple lawyer, a barrister, and not a business man.
      Mr. JONES: Their Chairman is a barrister, so that you are all in the same boat. We say that you have no right to spend the nation's money for fighting the battle of any class or section of the community. That is what you have been doing. This £ 309,000 was spent to fight the battle of the coalowners against the

      751
      miners, and you are prepared to spend a similar amount to fight the battle of the engineering employers. I protest. I am not a politician. I am here as an ordinary labourer, dragged into this dispute. One hundred thousand of the men of my own Union are now on their beam ends. Their wives and children are being practically forced into a position of starvation because of a struggle with which we have nothing to do. That is the case in every dispute. We are the people who suffer the most. We are brought into it whether we like it or not, and then the whole power of the State is used to force us into a position of inferiority. What advance have we ever got? No labourer in this country has ever got an advance in wages equal to the increase in the cost of living.
      Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here. Debate on a Supplementary Vote must be confined strictly to the subject matter of the Vote.
      Mr. JONES: I admit that I do not know the rules of the House and do not study them as some other hon. Members do. The only rule I know is the rule of life, and that is that to-day the Government of this country is organised to defend the employers' interests, and that behind the Federation of British Industries stands the Government to fight labour on every conceivable occasion, and this money is simply being used to beat the workers down in this dispute. We protest, therefore, against the money being spent.
      Mr. ADAMSON: We were against the calling up of the Air Force Reserves when the matter was before the House. We protested on the ground that the Government would be merely wasting money on an object for which there was no occasion. Notwithstanding these protests the Government went on in that course, and we should like to ask the representative of the Government to explain how and where this large sum of £ 309,000 was spent.
      Mr. HURD: The right hon. Gentleman has explained it already.
      Mr. ADAMSON: The explanation is not satisfactory to the section of the House who are raising the matter.
      Mr. HURD: You were not here, and you did not hear it.
      Mr. ADAMSON: I represent a large mining constituency and was frequently in those mining districts during the stoppage, and I never saw a single aeroplane or a member of the force in my constituency during the whole 13 weeks. I have discussed this matter with my colleagues from other districts in the British coalfields, and they all had the same experience. They did not see a single aeroplane during that time nor a single member of the Defence Force. Naturally, we are anxious to know how this large cost has been placed upon the British taxpayer. My own personal opinion is that it was quite unnecessary expenditure and that it brings into industrial disputes a new factor which may have a far-reaching effect in political and industrial development in this country. Many of us at the time took the view that it was quite unnecessary, and that it should not have been incurred, so long as the ordinary defence forces of the Crown were capable of protecting life and property. I do not know of a single incident during the whole 13 weeks in which it was found that the ordinary forces of the Crown were not capable of maintaining law and order. It is perfectly true the dispute was fought with grim determination by the mining section of the community, but I do not think there ever has been a dispute, in which such a large number of men were involved for such a length of time, where we had so little disorder. Those matters were pointed out to the Government at the time we were discussing the situation in April of last year. We are now looking to the Government for a detailed statement upon this.
      Mr. HURD: You have had it.
      Mr. ADAMSON: If my hon. Friend intends taking part in this discussion, he will find plenty to do in thinking out the manner in which he will deliver his own speech, without interfering with the way in which I am delivering mine.
      Mr. HURD: On a point of Order. May I ask if it is possible to convey to the right hon. Gentleman that we have had a complete answer to all the points which he is making.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House in the earlier stages of the Debate, and we can forgive him a want of knowledge, but it will be my duty to check him should he go over the same ground.
      Mr. ADAMSON: I have no intention of covering the same ground which anyone else has covered. Whatever may be my sins and shortcomings in this House, that is not one of the things which can be laid to my charge. It is perfectly true I was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government gave his explanation. I have, however, discussed it with my hon. Friends since I came in, and I find the explanation was not satisfactory. I was saying, when the interruption was made, or rather when the point of Order was put, that not only do we want a detailed statement as to how and where this money was spent, but we are entitled to get from the Government a statement as to the information on which they thought it necessary to incur the large expenditure involved in the Vote now under discussion. As has been admitted frequently in all quarters of the House, it was found during the course of that long dispute, involving so large a number of men, that there was little disorder. If in such circumstances the Government involves the taxpayers in this large expenditure and wastes money which could have been used for more legitimate purposes, surely when the Government present the bill we are entitled to ask the reasons for undertaking the expenditure.
      If this discussion gave one an opportunity of entering into the matter from a wider point of view, than you, Mr. Speaker, would permit, one might venture to suggest possible reasons for the Government's action. All I want to say is that before either this or any other Government brings into industrial matters a new factor such as was introduced on this occasion, there should be the gravest possible reasons. On this occasion there was no reason for such a factor being introduced. Neither this nor any other Government is entitled to spend money in holding the ring, until any section of our people are beaten down by the weapon of starvation and compelled to accept wages or conditions altogether out of keeping with the cost of living which has to be met by the working classes of this country. Notwithstanding that my
      754
      hon. Friend the Member for the Frome Division (Mr. Hurd) is so well satisfied with the explanation given, I hope before the discussion closes we will have a fuller explanation. As far as we on these benches are concerned, we can be no parties to passing a Vote of this kind, and we shall be bound to carry it into the Lobby, but we hope before we reach the final decision, that we shall have a more ample explanation of how and where this money was spent.
      Mr. JAMESON: I think every penny of this additional Vote was well spent, and was absolutely needed in the circumstances. It would be a gross piece of ingratitude for any lover of his country to cavil at the Government for the money which they spent on this very critical occasion. If we cast our minds back to that occasion, I think it will be seen that the Government saved this country from a first-class disaster by its precautionary measures. This money was spent as a precaution. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Adamson) informed us that he did not see any aeroplanes buzzing about in West Fife. They were not needed, but very much more would have been needed if the programme which was in the minds of certain persons had been carried out—that programme which broke down upon what is called by the Communist party Black Friday. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the miners, and especially the miners of West Fife, as being very delightful and lamblike. Everybody knows the miner is a good fellow. There were no better soldiers in the War than the miners. Everybody likes them, when they are left to themselves, but there is no use my right hon. Friend pretending that the miners of Cowdenbeath and Thornton Junction are lambs and doves.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is competing with his Scottish colleague in irrelevance.
      Mr. JAMESON: I bow to your ruling, Sir. The point towards which I was verging was that if the programme I refer to had been carried out and the means of transport interrupted, and the railways paralysed, aeroplanes would have been a vital necessity. Luckily, they had not to be put into action, but it was only because of these precautions that the country at the time was saved this

      755
      great disaster. It is on account of these precautions the present bill was run up on behalf of the country. It was not necessitated by the action of the Government at all, and to cavil at this amount which was spent as a precautionary measure, and which resulted in saving the country from a great disaster planned by the country's enemies, is a wrong course of action. The bill which is now presented to the country, though it was
      incurred really on behalf of people not upon these benches here, is a bill which has to be met, and the Government is certainly entitled to ask this House, and especially the Members of the Labour party, thoroughly to endorse it.
      Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 52.

      Division No. 60.]

      AYES.

      [7.0 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Forrest, Walter

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

      Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

      Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Baird, Sir John Lawrence

      Fraser, Major Sir Keith

      Nield, Sir Herbert

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Gardiner, James

      Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

      Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

      Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

      Gilbert, James Daniel

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Barker, Major Robert H.

      Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

      Parker, James

      Barnett, Major Richard W.

      Glyn, Major Ralph

      Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

      Barnston, Major Harry

      Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

      Pearce, Sir William

      Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

      Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Greenwood, William (Stockport)

      Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

      Beck, Sir Arthur Cecil

      Greig, Colonel Sir James William

      Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

      Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

      Gretton, Colonel John

      Perkins, Walter Frank

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

      Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

      Perring, William George

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

      Gwynne, Rupert S.

      Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

      Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

      Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

      Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

      Betterton, Henry B.

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

      Pratt, John William

      Birchall, J. Dearman

      Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

      Purchase, H. G.

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

      Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.

      Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

      Harris, Sir Henry Percy

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

      Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

      Haslam, Lewis

      Reid, D. D.

      Brassey, H. L. C.

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

      Renwick, Sir George

      Breese, Major Charles E.

      Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

      Brown, Major D. C.

      Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

      Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

      Bruton, Sir James

      Hills, Major John Waller

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

      Hinds, John

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

      Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

      Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

      Burdon, Colonel Rowland

      Hopkins, John W. W.

      Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

      Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

      Seager, Sir William

      Butcher, Sir John George

      Howard, Major S. G.

      Seddon, J. A.

      Carr, W. Theodore

      Hudson, R. M.

      Shaw, William T. (Forlar)

      Cautley, Henry strother

      Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

      Hurd, Percy A.

      Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

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

      James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

      Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

      Cheyne, Sir William Watson

      Jameson, John Gordon

      Steel, Major S. Strang

      Coats, Sir Stuart

      Jephcott, A. R.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Jodrell, Neville Paul

      Sugden, W. H.

      Cockerill, BriGadler-General G. K.

      Johnson, Sir Stanley

      Sutherland, Sir William

      Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

      Johnstone, Joseph

      Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

      Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

      Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

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

      Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

      Thorpe, Captain John Henry

      Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)

      Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

      Townley, Maximilian G.

      Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      Kidd, James

      Tiyon, Major George Clement

      Curzon, Captain Viscount

      King, Captain Henry Douglas

      Wallace, J.

      Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

      Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

      Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

      Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

      Lindsay, William Arthur

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

      Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

      Lloyd, George Butler

      Warren, Sir Alfred H.

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

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

      Williams. C. (Tavistock)

      Dockrell, Sir Maurice

      Lort-Williams, J.

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

      Edge, Captain Sir William

      Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

      Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry

      Ednam, Viscount

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

      Windsor, Viscount

      Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

      Macpherson, Rt. Hon James I.

      Wise, Frederick

      Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

      Macquisten, F. A.

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

      Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

      Mallalieu, Frederick William

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

      Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

      Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

      Falcon, Captain Michael

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

      Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

      Mason, Robert

      Yeo, Sir Alfred William

      Farquharson, Major A. C.

      Molson, Major John Elsdale

      Young, E. H. (Norwich)

      Fell, Sir Arthur

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

      Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

      Fildes, Henry

      Morrison, Hugh

      Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

      Fitzroy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

      Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

      Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

      Neal, Arthur

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

      Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

      Forestier-Walker, L.

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

      Dudley Ward.

      NOES

      Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

      Hayday, Arthur

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Ammon, Charles George

      Hirst, G. H.

      Sitch, Charles H.

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

      Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

      Swan, J. E.

      Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

      Hogge, James Myles

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

      Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

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

      Cairns, John

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West)

      Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

      Kennedy, Thomas

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

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

      Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

      Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

      Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

      Kenyon, Barnet

      Tillett, Benjamin

      Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

      Kiley, James Daniel

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Lawson, John James

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

      Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

      Foot, Isaac

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

      Wintringham, Margaret

      Galbraith, Samuel

      Mosley, Oswald

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

      Gillis, William

      Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

      Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Murray, Or. D. (Inverness & Ross)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Grundy, T. W.

      Newbould, Alfred Ernest

      Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. R. Young.

      Hancock, John George

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Hartshorn, Vernon

      Rendall, Athelstan

      First and Second Resolutions agreed to.

      Postponed Consideration of Third Resolution resumed.
      Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I beg to move, to leave out "£ 1,826,000," and to insert instead thereof "£ 1,825,900."
      I do this with the object of requesting the Government to give the House some information regarding the very large sums of money which they are asking the House this evening to vote for works, buildings, and lands. At the time when the housing programme has been cut down throughout the country and there is extreme difficulty experienced in every part of Great Britain in finding suitable accommodation for the people at home, it seems to me questionable whether the large sums of money for which the Government are asking in this Vote should be spent this year. We have been told by Members of the Government that their housing programme has been cut down because of an insufficiency of labour and lack of raw materials. In these Estimates there is a large sum of money which must be spent in the employment of skilled artizans whose labour could be diverted to erecting suitable housing accommodation for the people in our industrial areas. Let me direct the attention of the House to one or two items in this Vote. On page 23 the sums of money for the erection of the boys' training establishmen at Halton Park is £ 185,000, and further down on that page there is an additional sum of £ 140,000 for improvements to regimental and other temporary accommodation. It is, I think, within the recollection of the House that the Geddes Committee, when reviewing the total expenditure of the State, dwelt upon the wisdom of postponing even necessary
      758
      building for the defensive forces at home. That Committee's recommendations, I fear, have not been accepted by the Secretary of State; otherwise, this very large sum of money of practically nearly £ 2,000,000 would not be asked for at a time of extreme financial stringency.
      Let me direct the attention of the House for a few minutes to two or three other large items in this Vote. We are accustomed to spending very large sums of money in Iraq. The policy of the Government in that portion of the Globe changes from year to year, yet in this Estimate this year there is a sum of money of nearly half-a-million for additional accommodation and improvements to the barracks in that far-distant country. Surely this is not the time to spend half-a-million—to be exact, a sum of £ 438,000—on the erection mainly of office buildings in that far-away country. We know that the late Secretary of State for War has been anxious to develop the Air Force and that the present Secretary of State has inherited, no doubt, the spirit of his predecessor on that subject, but I think one has just to draw the attention of the House to that one figure. However necessary it may be to provide suitable defence for the different subjects we are going to rule in that far-distant country, having been myself in that country for a short time during the War I am convinced that the millions of money that this country has spent, and is spending to-day, there will never bring any commercial return. It is, I think, quite unnecessary and excessive in amount, and I hope the Secretary of State may give the House some further information on that subject. I will not detain hon. Members by directing their attention to other items, but to ask the

      759
      House of Commons at the close of the present Financial Year, when every Income Tax payer throughout the country is feeling the extreme hardship of high Income Tax, low profits, and few orders, to vote £2,000,000 for the erection of works and buildings which will require repair year by year and which will require further expenditure as the years go by causes me to suggest that the recommendations of the Geddes Committee on this subject should be adopted in toto by the House of Commons.
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so because it seems to me that this is a very small part of the expenditure we shall be asked to Vote on some future occasion. The item laid before the House at the present moment amounts, as my hon. Friend said, to nearly £2,000,000. We know how in cases of this nature the snowball grows, and if this huge sum is spent now at a time when we cannot and ought not to spend it, I venture to say that we shall see the day when the Government will be asking for a still larger sum in respect of the maintenance and repair of the buildings we are asked to erect. On those grounds, and in order to elicit some statement from the Government as to their reasons for putting this particular Vote before us, I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
      Colonel Sir JAMES GREIG: I should not have intervened had it not been for an observation which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins). He told us that he had been to the country on which this money is going to be spent, namely, Iraq. I know that, and he was one of the gentlemen, if I mistake not, who convinced a great many of us after that visit that Iraq was one of the richest countries in the world, and that we ought to retain our control of it. I remember his speeches and his lectures, which were illustrated with admirable photographs, and in which he pointed out, amongst other things, that there were 90 feet of alluvial soil all down that country, that it only wanted good government to become one of the greatest and richest corn producing countries in the world; and now he turns round and says it is not worth spending a penny on it. I can only say that it
      760
      is a pity that he is now taking that line, which, as it seems to me, is an entire reversal of his previous position.
      Sip D. MACLEAN: The hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew (Sir J. Greig) made a reference to my hon. Friend the Member, for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) with regard to some speeches which he made on the subject of Iraq. With great fairness, the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew used the necessary qualification in the quotation, when he said that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock had stated that with good government these things might be made of some commercial use. Quite obviously, there is no good government there, and as long as the present occupants of the Treasury Bench remain there is not the slightest chance of getting any good Government, so I do not wonder that my hon. Friend has moved to reduce the Vote. I want to ask one or two questions in regard to the Vote. Will the Minister in charge explain to us the reasons for the increase, under "G, Rents, Compensations, and Reinstatements," of £333,000, and will he explain what is the meaning of the words in italics near the bottom of page 20 of the Estimates: "Deduct for probable underspending on the Vote as a whole, £250,000." What economies have they in mind which they can indicate to the distressed taxpayer in order to relieve him from some of his anxieties?
      I want to direct attention once more to a favourite topic of mine, namely, Appropriations-in-Aid, under the heading "N." They amount to no less a sum than £1,425,000, reducing the total Estimate of £3,251,000 to the comparatively moderate sum of £1,826,000. On page 26 of the Estimate hon. Members will see, under the heading "N," what are the Appropriations-in-Aid. Some of them are quite obvious matters for deduction from the gross Estimate, such as "Rents, sales of timber, hay, etc., £10,000"; "Recoveries for barrack damages and miscellaneous receipts, £20,000"; "Other repayments in respect of works services in the Middle East, £65,000"; and "Arising of works stores, £10,000." But where we get the sum which makes the Appropriation-in-Aid so large, is on Item 3, "Repayments by the Middle East Department in respect of Iraq, Palestine, and Trans-Jordania, £1,320,000." What

      761
      I want the House to agree with me in is this that the real Estimate which we are asked to pass is not the net Estimate of £1,826,000, but the net Estimate after you have left out this huge sum of repayments by the Middle East Department. The net Estimate really is for £3,100,000. Here we have this bookkeeping manœuvre appearing once again. The taxpayer pays this sum into the Middle East Department, I suppose, and then the Air Force renders the operation which is required of it, and then the Middle East Department repays it. We never shall understand what things really cost until this question of Appropriation-in-Aid is thoroughly examined by the House in Committee and on Report, and we get only those net deductions which to an ordinary business man running his business on common-sense ordinary lines would be considered to fall within the word "net."
      The real Estimate for which the Government is asking us to-day is, as I say, not £1,826,000, but £3,100,000, and the House should thoroughly understand that. I protest once again against the constant rubbing out, which we owe, I suppose, to the fertile genius of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, of the Middle East Department in connection with the straightforward War services of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. We shall never get these things straight until that is eliminated. The constant muddle will go on, and the constant temptation to officials in all Departments concerned to seek refuge from some difficulty—I do not suggest any venal motive on their part at all, but refuge from some statistical difficulty—in this irritating muddle of the Army within the Army operating in the Middle East.
      Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I would like to ask a question or two in regard to Halton Park, which is dealt with in this Vote. I have not studied these Votes very closely, but I am amazed to see this item, for if there ever was a place where money was literally poured out it is Halton Park. I do not speak from mere hearsay, because I happened to have had a cottage there after the War, and I saw what was going on with my own eyes during 1917, 1918, and 1919, and I was so astonished at the way in which the money was spent there that I took occasion, when I got into this House, to
      762
      draw the attention of the then Air Minister to what I thought was going on. To spend £685,000 this year for works is amazing, and I do not know where the money could be spent there. The Vote refers to isolation hospital staff quarters, permanent flight sheds, etc. I should have thought that up to the present the hundreds of thousands of pounds which have been poured into Halton Park could have done all that was required at the place, and I am very loath to vote this money until I get an explanation from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Air which will assure me that the money is being dealt with in a careful way. I have seen with my own eyes how roads were put down, channelled, and kerbed, and laid up to a great wood at the back of Halton Park—roads more fit for Oxford Street than for a village housing an air-training force. I have seen sheds taken down and put up again because they did not turn to the right angle, I have seen lorries going backwards and forwards from the camp to Wendover Station to carry one single parcel—three-ton lorries—and when I came back from ray work in London, I used to see these lorries going up and down. I have seen a lorry, with 12 men in it, going to load at Wendover Station a few camp bedsteads, and, in view of what went on there to my own knowledge, I feel very loath to support this Vote until the Minister has given us a full explanation of what they are doing there, how they are spending the money, and whether the money is being carefully allocated. Why there should be any further need now for lighting and draining the village, I do not know. I see in the Vote they call it a village, and I suppose it is a case of another Gretna, but there is lighting in Wendover, and a waterworks station at Halton, which was put up years ago, and it seems to me that this money must be duplicating expenditure at Halton Camp. For those reasons, I shall be greatly obliged if my right hon. Friend will tell us a little more about it.
      Mr. MOSLEY: My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) has called attention to the extraordinary juggle that is apparently going on between the Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Air and that of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is like a game which children play at

      763
      Christmastime called "Hunt the slipper," the object of which is not to be found with the slipper in one's possession, and so the bill for the Middle Eastern services is flung to and fro, apparently, between the Department of my right hon. Friend opposite and that of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the result that neither of them is ever found with the responsibility for this expenditure definitely saddled and fixed upon his Department. It is in these ways that the House of Commons at the present time is always baffled when it makes any attempt to control expenditure. Until this system of accounting is in some way amended and made more intelligible, until it is possible to hold some right hon. Gentleman definitely responsible for the bill which is incurred, it will be impossible for this House to assert its old control.
      There is one question I should like to address to my right hon. Friend in relation to the permanent building, which, apparently, has been undertaken by my right hon. Friend's Department in Iraq—£438,000. We are informed that great masses of troops are to leave Iraq during the course of the current year, and a consequent movement is in progress to evacuate that country so far as the ordinary military forces are concerned. We know that in Votes of previous years, we have been asked to afford money for the erection of permanent accommodation for the troops in that country. The question I want to address to my right hon. Friend is this: Why is it not possible to make use of that permanent accommodation in Iraq which has already been erected, the expense of which has already been borne by this House? Why is it not possible to make use of that accommodation for housing the Air Force so far as barrack accommodation, at any rate, is concerned? Surely the Air Force can make use of those buildings which must actually be standing on the spot at this moment. There is one more question. I should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would afford us some explanation as to Item A—Staff for Works Services—and tell us exactly what this item comprises, and he characer of the staff which is set out.
      Captain GUEST: In dealing with Halton, which was one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Greenock
      764
      (Sir G. Collins) I think I shall be able to reply also to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) and the hon. Member who has just sat down. It is necessary that the House should appreciate what Halton means to the Royal Air Force. First of all, it is within four-fifths of completion. I am not in a position to defend in detail the money spent upon it during 1917, 1918 and 1919, as I was not responsible, but dealing with the accounts as presented to me, I am faced with this situation. Four-fifths of the capital expenditure has already been paid, and one-fifth remains to complete the buildings. It will be noticed that the buildings are divided under several heads, and it would seem a pity to stop now, within so narrow a limit of completion, when the House has already approved of the Air Ministry retaining the principle of training their own boy mechanics in this school, rather than apply to the trade, as suggested by the Geddes Committee. The land at Halton is most suitable, and it may be described as luxurious. I wish more hon. Members had a chance of seeing under what delightful conditions these 2,000 or 3,000 boy mechanics are being brought up. It is hoped that by the time the place is completed, we shall have nearly 3,000 boy mechanics being trained there. It must also be remembered that a very large staff of officers is necessary to train these boys. I think the staff there at present is a little over 100. The House will be more lenient, I think, in their judgment as to Halton, when they appreciate that it is the one and only permanent building the Air Force has got.
      Mr. A.M. SAMUEL: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I say that I forgot to mention we were also told that when there were many hundreds of boys there, there were not enough instructors, and when there were enough instructors, there were not enough boys? Has that been put right?
      Captain GUEST: We have already 1,700 boys and 110 instructors there at present, or during the course of the summer, and we are within, I think, a few months of the completion of building to enable us to house the full number before we proceed to consider the policy of prolonging the period of service of these boys.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: Am I right in these figures, that the capital outlay to the State for housing these 3,000 boys in this training establishment is about £1,400,000?
      Captain GUEST: There is no doubt that a great deal of money has been spent in the last two or three years, and I only took over when it was nearing completion. It must be borne in mind that, besides the housing of the boys, there is the whole of the class-room buildings, and the whole of the shops, which are almost the best shops throughout the length and breadth of the land. Whether money has been spent unnecessarily on roads and paths I am not in a position to say, but I know that when it is completed, and the Force has got itself established there, as I hope it will be in the coming year, it will be economically administered, and it will be an institution of which the country will be very proud indeed.
      I pass to the next biggest item to which attention has been drawn. It is Iraq, and here the reply is bound to go a little wide. The proposal outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is clearly within the recollection of the House, and it will be remembered that the policy of handing over the whole control to the Air Force has meant a great economy. If I remember rightly, it will save £20,000,000; but in order to effect this economy, and not to expose the reduced force to too great risk, it is essential that the concentrated headquarters shall be really secure, and it is in the bend of the river, which has been described before, that the new Air Force concentration is to take place. It has involved the setting up in that perimeter of semi-permanent buildings, and up to now the Army have not had permanent buildings in Iraq, but only very temporary accommodation, more or less. In any case, a good deal of the accommodation would be of no possible use for the policy of this concentrated camp which the Air Force have established in the bend of the river. It has been chosen for several good reasons, one being that the ground necessary for a great aeroplane station is extremely vulnerable. You cannot surround it by barbed wire fences or guard it unless you have some geographical feature to assist you. Therefore the
      766
      bend of the river has been chosen, leaving only one end which would have to be held if there is any trouble in the country. That must be borne in mind in considering the immense economy that the whole scheme has brought to the taxpayer at home.
      There is one other point in this connection. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) contended that the whole system of Appropriations-in-Aid was misleading to the House. Upon that I pass no opinion, but I accept no responsibility for it. It is the manner in which we, who are concerned in the Middle East, have to present our Votes to the House; but it is further complicated, unfortunately, this year by the fact that not only are we ourselves and the Middle East involved, but the War Office also has been involved, and I can understand the House being fogged with the procedure. But there is no intention to hide it from the House, and the fact that my right hon. Friend's attention was so quickly drawn to it is evidence of that. Our new Works last year, amounting to £600,000, were approved by this House. During the course of the year £500,000 was spent, and only £100,000 for new works is being asked for in the Estimates this year. If I could persuade hon. Members to have a look at some of the stations during the winter they would not complain of the expenditure the Air Force has incurred in trying to keep them in order. With regard to Item A—Staff for Works Services—to which attention has been drawn by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), the increase is due to the fact that we have now got to undertake new obligations and new responsibilities in connection with building abroad, and it is for that reason only that this year the Staff of the Works Department is higher than it would otherwise have been. As regards Item G—Rents, Compensations, and Re-instate-ments—it is important that the House should appreciate that these are reinstatements of land and buildings which we have to do under the Defence of the Realm Act; in other words, it is quite fair to describe it as a war liability.
      Question put, "That '£1,826,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
      The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 50.

      Division No. 61.]

      AYES.

      [7.46 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Gardiner, James

      Parker, James

      Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

      Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

      Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

      Baird, Sir John Lawrence

      Gilbert, James Daniel

      pearce, Sir William

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

      Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

      Barker, Major Robert H.

      Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

      Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

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

      Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Barnett, Major Richard W.

      Greenwood, William (Stockport)

      Perring, William George

      Barnston, Major Harry

      Greig, Colonel Sir James William

      Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

      Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

      Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

      Pratt, John William

      Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

      Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

      Purchase, H. G.

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

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

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

      Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

      Remnant, Sir James

      Birchall, J. Dearman

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

      Renwick, Sir George

      Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

      Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

      Brassey, H. L. C.

      Hills, Major John Waller

      Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

      Breese, Major Charles E.

      Hinds, John

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Brown, Major D. C.

      Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

      Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

      Bruton, Sir James

      Hopkins, John W. W.

      Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

      Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

      Howard, Major S. G.

      Seager, Sir William

      Burdon, Colonel Rowland

      Hudson, R. M.

      Seddon, J. A.

      Carr, W. Theodore

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

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

      Cautley, Henry strother

      Jephcott, A. R.

      Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

      Jesson, C.

      Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

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

      Jodrell, Neville Paul

      Steel, Major S. Strang

      Cheyne, Sir William Watson

      Johnson, Sir Stanley

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

      Sugden, W. H.

      Cockerill, BriGadler-General G. K.

      Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

      Taylor, J.

      Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

      Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

      Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

      King, Captain Henry Douglas

      Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

      Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

      Lloyd, George Butler

      Townley, Maximilian G.

      Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

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

      Tryon, Major George Clement

      Dockrell, Sir Maurice

      Lort-Williams, J.

      Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

      Edge, Captain Sir William

      Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

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

      Ednam, viscount

      Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachle)

      Warren, Sir Alfred H.

      Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

      McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

      Williams, C. (Tavistock)

      Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

      Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

      Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

      Macquisten, F. A.

      Windsor, Viscount

      Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

      Winterton, Earl

      Falcon, Captain Michael

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Wise, Frederick

      Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

      Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

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

      Farquharson, Major A. C.

      Mason, Robert

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

      Fell, Sir Arthur

      Molson, Major John Eisdale

      Worsfoid, T. Cato

      Flides, Henry

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

      Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

      Fitzroy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

      Neal, Arthur

      Young, E. H. (Norwich)

      Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

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

      Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Forestler-Walker, L.

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

      Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

      Forrest, Walter

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Dudley Ward.

      Fraser, Major Sir Keith

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

      NOES.

      Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

      Hancock, John George

      Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

      Ammon, Charles George

      Hartshorn, Vernon

      Newbould, Alfred Ernest

      Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

      Hayday, Arthur

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

      Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Cairns, John

      Hirst, G. H.

      Sitch, Charles H.

      Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

      Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

      Swan, J. E.

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

      Johnstone, Joseph

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

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

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

      Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

      Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

      Kennedy, Thomas

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

      Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

      Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Kenyon, Barnet

      Wilson, James (Dudley)

      Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

      Lawson, John James

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

      Edwards. G. (Norfolk, South)

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

      Galbraith, Samuel

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

      Gills, William

      Mallalieu, Frederick William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Mosley, Oswald

      Mr. Hogge and Mr. W. R. Smith.

      Grundy, T. W.

      Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Sir G. COLLINS: The discussion on Vote IV has revealed some very interesting matters on which I should like to offer a few observations. This building
      at Halton Park is going to cost £1,400,000, and this is to provide accommodation for 2,000 boys! In other words, each boy is going to cost, as a capital charge, £700. I should like to, draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee about

      769
      buildings. The suggestion will be put forward from this side that as there are to-day 1,700 boys receiving instruction in quarters there while the total number the Secretary of State is going to provide for is 2,000, that this work should be delayed, and that it is not necessary at this time to spend £185,000 to complete the work, because it is likely the completion can take place at a lower rate in the coming year.
      The other interesting point refers to Iraq. While the airmen for the last four years have been living under canvas the Secretary of State for Air is going to erect permanent buildings in that far-distant country. I think even the Secretary of State will not dogmatise at the present on the Air Force being able to govern that country permanently and successfully. We may hope it may be so, yet the employment of the Air Force in that country is experimental. It may have passed from the experimental stage, but in view of the short period that has elapsed in the employment of the force in that country, to ask the House of Commons this year, not only to find £438,000 for the erection of buildings, but in addition to that, as I see by page 21 of the Estimates, staff for works services in the Middle East, are calling for a further sum of £135,000. Not only are these buildings to be erected, but it is evident the Government are sending a large number of officials from this country, or paying them in this country for work to be done, in that country. Evidently the British taxpayer is going to be asked in the coming year to find nearly £600,000 for the erection of works in that distant country and the employment of staff £or storks services in the Middle East. Surely the Government, having themselves appointed the Geddes Committee, ought at least to pay more than lip service to their recommendations. At a time, too, when they are cutting down their housing and other programmes at home. This should be a year in which all money voted for new works should be reduced to a minimum The number of men in the Air Force is only 33,000. It is to cost £55 this year in new works for every individual employed. It is quite evident these Estimates are not being presented with that care that the taxpayer has the right to demand from the occupants of the Government Bench.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Postponed Consideration of Fourth Resolution resumed.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I intend to move a reduction in this Vote—
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have just proposed the Question; and the right hon. Gentleman is therefore not entitled to move a reduction.
      8.0 P.M.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: Then I want to ask one or two questions from the Minister in charge of the Vote. I commence again with the point as to the Appropriations-in-Aid, by way of a further illustration of the well-justified complaint which the House has from time to time made, and in which we have the support of the Minister himself. If hon. Members will look at item J (Appropriations-in-Aid), they will find that the total Vote is £2,214,000, and by Appropriations-in-Aid it is reduced to £1,530,000. On page 16 you will find that these Appropriations-in-Aid amount to £684,000, although the particulars of them are quite trifling, such as £1,000, £14,500, £2,500 and Miscellaneous £33,000. Then comes the recurrent item of repayments by the Middle East Department in respect of Iraq, Palestine, and Trans-Jordania, £633,000. I repeat that the items, brought in from the Army accounts, are confusing to the House, and they are not fair to the taxpayer by reason of the fact that we cannot have a proper disentanglement of them, or arrive at the definite cost by reason of the complications to which I have just referred. While there are some satisfactory reductions in this Vote—and I wish this was an effective sample of the other Votes in regard to the amount-of the reductions—will my right hon. Friend tell us why under item B (Barrack. Services) there is relatively a large increase compared with the £37,300 for 1921–22 and the Estimate has gone up by £9,700? What is the real cause of that?
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Too much emphasis cannot be laid on the points to which my right hon. Friend who has just sat down has drawn attention in respect of these Appropriations-in-Aid. I was surprised on a previous Vote to hear the

      771
      Secretary of State for Air pass over, as he did very light-heartedly, the criticisms made by my right hon. Friend on this point, because I do not think too much stress can be laid upon it. On this point the Secretary of State for Air on a previous Vote said he did not intend to comment upon the criticisms of my right hon. Friend.
      Captain GUEST: Upon the system.
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman says that he takes no responsibility for the system, and that may be so. It is not perhaps the fault of my right hon. Friend, but that in no sense excludes the Government whose responsibility it is, and it is for that reason that every opportunity ought to be taken on the part of those who disagree in this matter of driving it home, and urging upon the Government that they should not introduce a method of this nature which is muddling to the taxpayer. The taxpayer never knows from Votes brought forward in this way with these Appropriations-in-Aid what is being spent, and it is impossible for the taxpayer to know exactly what it is he is asked to spend upon these particular objects. I do hope that in future years Estimates of this sort will not be submitted to the House with the Middle East Department or the Army Department mixed up with other Departments of State, and the taxpayer will then know actually what it is he is asked to spend upon these particular items. I urge upon the Government the introduction of some better method.
      Dr. MURRAY: I want to ask a question about the reduction in the item for medical services. The reduction in this item in proportion seems to me to be very much larger than in the case of many other items of expenditure under this Vote. The amount for 1921–22 was £141,800. The amount for 1922–23 is £83,400, showing a reduction of £58,400. I should like to be assured that this does not mean any decreases in the efficiency of the Medical Services in connection with the members of the Air Force. I see that altogether there is a net total decrease of £1,575,000. In this respect I should like to point a moral. I am surprised that the Minister for Air should make himself responsible for any economy at all, because 18 months ago, in most
      772
      interesting letters in the Press, he challenged his critics to point out any item in which economies could be made in Government expenditure, and I find now that even in his own Department he has been able to effect large economies. I hope in the future he will not write letters to the "Times" about the impossibility of economising in any Government Department.
      Captain GUEST: I do not think my right hon. Friend will expect me again to attempt to justify the systems of Appropriations-in-Aid. They have been in operation for a great many years, and I do not myself see how you can do without them, and they are bound to continue more or less. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) asked me for an explanation of the increase in the item for barrack services. It relates to the personnel employed in the Royal Air Force, and I have ascertained that the increase is due to the fact that this amount was included in Vote I last year, and this year it is included in this Vote. I am grateful for what has been said in regard to the decreases in this Vote, and I may point out that although they are very substantial they do not apply to this Vote only. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) has asked me a question about the item for medical services. I should be glad if the hon. Member would glance at the explanation given on page 16 under Item G, and there he will notice that there is a big reduction in payments to hospitals. In 1921–22 these payments amounted to £132,500, but the Estimate for 1922–23 is £73,000. This is largely due to a new system in the Royal Air Force of dealing directly with big civilian hospitals instead of keeping up expensive establishments of our own. I think what I have said answers the few questions which have been addressed to me.
      Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Geddes Committee reported that the life of the uniforms issued to the Army and the Navy and the Air Force ought to be extended. They were forced to wear their clothes longer during the War, and that simple principle should apply to the fighting forces of the Crown now. I know that soldiers and sailors place great stress on their smart turn out, but I am anxious

      773
      to ask the Secretary of State if that direct recommendation of the Geddes Committee has also been turned down. In a former Vote we showed that the Geddes Committee's recommendation in regard to works and buildings had been discarded, and I want to know if this has been done in regard to the question of clothing. The Estimate for this year is £182,500 and perhaps the Secretary of State will give us some information on that point.
      I wish to raise one other small point. Under Item H, which is the cost of transport, it seems to me to be very high. The amount put down is £540,200 for the transport of a force which only contains 33,000 men. This seems to me to be rather a large item, because the total transport for the Air Force is over £500,000. Is it possible to use the mail service to the Far East? The point I wish to make is that now old standards must be discarded. Although it may have been delightful in the past to house our men in the best way, and clothe them in the most attractive uniforms, yet we must now readjust our standards, and face the definite reality that the public cannot and will not afford to maintain our Services in the same way as in the past. These are only small items, but it is an example of the carelessness which runs through all their dealings when they approach this subject, not only from a pre-War outlook, but also permeated with the war spirit. We ask the Government to take note of the dissatisfaction in the country, and to readjust the terms and conditions of service more in keeping with the large number of men and women to-day who are suffering from the folly of the present Government in the way of excessive expenditure, which leads to excessive and burdensome taxation.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Postponed Consideration of Fifth Resolution resumed.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move, to leave out "£1,295,000," and to insert instead thereof "£1,294,900."
      I move this reduction not by way of criticism on the decrease of the Vote, because I am happy to notice that in every item of this Vote there is a decrease and not a single increase, but I move it as a protest once more—and it is the last opportunity I shall have to-night
      774
      —against these Appropriations-in-Aid. This is the only way in which we can get anything out of the Government. It is only by persistent and steady criticism, and by the process which is popularly known as "rubbing it in," that we can do this. I propose to carry out that procedure by a Vote in the Lobby on this occasion. I want to direct the attention of the House once again to the fact that these Appropriations-in-Aid amount to a considerable sum—to £898,000. The gross total asked for is £2,193,000, notwithstanding that there is a satisfactory decrease of over £2,000,000, and the Appropriations-in-Aid are arrived at in the familiar style by repayments from the Middle East Department in respect of Iraq, Palestine, and Trans-Jordania.
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has moved this reduction. It is the only way by which we can bring home to the Government what we think about these large Appropriations-in-Aid which deprive the taxpayer, and indeed this House—for it is only Members who study the Estimates in the way they have been studied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) who realise what they are being asked to pay—of the knowledge they ought to have. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the last speech he made on this particular subject said, "Oh, yes, this sort of thing has been the habit of governments for many years. It is a system of which the Government must avail itself, and everything is for the best in the best of worlds." It has been my privilege to be a Member of this House for a considerable number of years, and I venture to say we never had Appropriations-in-Aid of the amount which are submitted to-day. We have never had, and I hope never will have again, anything like the Middle East Department, which dovetails into other Departments, which quite clearly muddles its own accounts and the accounts of the other Departments, and of which we see the results in these large Appropriations-in-Aid. Therefore, with very great respect to the Secretary for Air, I say the analogy he brought forward cannot hold water for a single instant. I am consequently glad that my right hon. Friend has moved this reduction in order to impress on the Government the neces-

      775
      sity of bringing these Appropriations-in-Aid to an end and of not making similar proposals another year.
      Mr. HOGGE: There is one point on which I should like a reply with regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid. We have just passed Vote 2, in which there was an increase of £143,000 last year and one of £684,000 this year. In this Vote there is an increase of £534,890. It is not only that the system is bad, but in the two years exposed on the face of this Estimate it is shown that the habit is increasing, and that the amounts are increasing. I daresay if we added the amounts of the Appropriations-in-Aid on this account it would represent the income of a very respectable Department of State. This is not good business. It is not the best way of presenting these accounts to the public seeing that, if the calculation is made, the totals may be found to be simply astounding. Another point on which I should like a little information is with regard to Subhead N, which deals with war liabilities. I notice that last year a sum of £700,000 was spent in meeting the claims of inventors. There are apparently claims still outstanding against the Government for War services, although the Vote taken this year is only half a million. I do not say that the money has not been earned. As far as I have been able to observe in the past the claims that have been made by inventors for what they contributed to the War have not been adequately rewarded so far as money is concerned. The information I want is this: Is this the last contribution of this nature for which we are to be asked? Does this half million of money, to be voted this year, represent the whole of the remaining liabilities in regard to inventors? If not, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if the liability can be exhausted by the expenditure of so many more hundreds of thousands of pounds, and, if so, how many? I do not want him to give a meticulous figure, but I do suggest that this kind of thing should not go on indefinitely from one Estimate to another without the public being able to tell what has been spent. In these two years £1,200,000 has been asked for. I do not know what was spent in the year preceding, but I do think the House which, after all, has to provide the money, should be given information on
      776
      these points. In the first place, is this habit of Appropriations-in-Aid to continue, and, if not, when is it going to be stopped? Secondly, what are our future liabilities with regard to the large items under the Subhead N?
      Dr. MURRAY: I want to draw attention to what may be a very small point. I notice that the Secretary for the Colonies always uses the word "Iraq" in describing Mesopotamia. Why should the other Departments adopt that name? It has manifestly been adopted in order to make people forget Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is not the blessed word which it was before the War, and the country has got absolutely sick and tired of spending money there. As far as I can gather, the only motive for the use of the word "Iraq" is to make people think that the money is spent in some other part of the world than Mesopotamia. I read a speech of the Secretary of State for War the other night, in which he said that the word "Coalition" had an evil smell, and that, therefore, they must change it, and the Liberals adopted the title "National Liberal" from Germany, in order to hide the word "Coalition." But that sort of thing will not do in business documents of this sort. The Government ought not to try to deceive the country in this way, and make the country believe that this money is not squandered in Mesopotamia. The word "Mesopotamia" should be used instead of "Iraq" in the future, so that people may know that this squandering in Mesopotamia is still going on.
      Captain GUEST: I think it would be unwise for me to enter into an explanation of, or to atempt to justify the reasons for, the change from "Mesopotamia" to "Iraq." I should soon find myself wandering on to debatable ground. It will, perhaps, more usefully serve my purpose if I answer the two businesslike questions which have been addressed to me on Vote 3. The first is as to why the Appropriations-in-Aid have increased from £534,000 to £898,000 this year. The answer is that the services we are rendering in Iraq are increasing. They have increased during the last year, and will be increasing during the coming year. It should, however, also be borne in mind that other expenses are decreasing side by side with our increase. The Army

      777
      expenditure is decreasing at a very rapid rate, indeed, and ours is increasing somewhat.
      Mr. HOGGE: Last year the Appropriations-in-Aid were put down in one sum of £534,000, and this year the sum of £661,200 represents what the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to call further responsibilities in Mesopotamia. Can he tell us what was the comparable sum last year?
      Captain GUEST: No.
      Mr. HOGGE: Why not?
      Captain GUEST: Because it has not been supplied to me. If I had it I should be only too anxious to furnish it to the hon. Member. But I think the explanation which I am giving will really meet his demand. The increase in our activities in connection with the Middle East Department is in squadrons and undertakings on behalf of that Department. In India I should think they are the same. I have no reason to believe that the charge against India has in any way altered. I think that that very nearly supplies the information that the hon. Member desires. As regards the miscellaneous Appropriations, I am not sure what the exact amount was, but I should think it would be about the same figure. With regard to Item M, which is £500,000 this year for War Liabilities (Rewards to Inventors and Miscellaneous Claims), this is a figure over which we in the Air Ministry have no control. The awards are made by the Royal Commission on Inventions, and we are merely instructed to ask in the House of Commons for the money to meet the awards made against our Department. I am trying to ascertain whether it is possible to give any indication as to
      whether these claims are coming to an end, but I have not been able to obtain the information. I can only suggest that, as the War recedes further into the past, these claims will be defrayed one after another.
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is there any time limit within which a claim must be lodged?
      Captain GUEST: I am not able to say whether there is a time limit, but I should rather imagine that there is not. That is a point, however, upon which I can very easily obtain definite information. It is, however, beyond the power of the Ministry in any way to control the amount, as it is settled over their heads by the Royal Commission.
      Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, with regard to Item M, what proportion of these War liabilities is for rewards to inventors and what proportion is for other miscellaneous claims? I think I am right in saying that under this head are included a large number of claims for broken contracts and matters of that kind, and it would be useful if we could be told exactly what proportion of the amount applies to the one and what proportion applies to the other?
      Captain GUEST: I cannot possibly separate it under the two heads, but I will make inquiries.
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether there ought not to be a time limit? It might go on for 20 or 30 years.
      Question put, "That £1,295,000 stand part of the Resolution."
      The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 45.

      Division No. 62.]

      AYES.

      [8.33 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

      Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

      Bagtey, Captain E. Ashton

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

      Farquharson, Major A. C.

      Baird, Sir John Lawrence

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Fell, Sir Arthur

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

      Cockerill, BriGadler-General G. K.

      Fildes, Henry

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

      Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

      Fitzroy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

      Barnston, Major Harry

      Conway, Sir W. Martin

      Ford, Patrick Johnston

      Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

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

      Forestier-Walker, L.

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

      Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

      Forrest, Walter

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

      Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

      Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

      Birchall, J. Dearman

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

      Eraser, Major Sir Keith

      Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

      Dockrell, Sir Maurice

      Gardiner, James

      Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

      Edge, Captain Sir William

      Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

      Brassey, H. L. C.

      Ednam, Viscount

      Gilbert, James Daniel

      Breese, Major Charles E.

      Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

      Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

      Brown, Major D. C.

      Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

      Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

      Bruton, Sir James

      Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

      Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

      Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

      Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

      Greenwood, William (Stockport)

      Greig, Colonel Sir James William

      Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachle)

      Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

      Guest, Capt-Fit, Hon. Frederick E.

      Macquisten, F. A.

      Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

      Mallalieu, Frederick William

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Seager, Sir William

      Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

      Mason, Robert

      Seddon, J. A.

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

      Molson, Major John Eisdale

      Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

      Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

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

      Hills, Major John Waller

      Morris, Richard

      Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

      Hinds, John

      Neal, Arthur

      Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

      Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

      Steel, Major S. Strang

      Hood, Sir Joseph

      Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

      Sugden, W. H.

      Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

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

      Taylor, J.

      Hopkins, John W. W.

      Parker, James

      Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

      Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

      Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

      Tryon, Major George Clement

      Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

      Pearce, Sir William

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

      Hudson, R. M.

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

      Warren, Sir Alfred H.

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

      Porkins, Walter Frank

      Williams, C. (Tavistock)

      Jameson, John Gordon

      Perring, William George

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

      Jephcott, A. R.

      Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

      Winterton, Earl

      Jesson, C.

      Pratt, John William

      Wise, Frederick

      Johnson, Sir Stanley

      Purchase, H. G.

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

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

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Worsfold, T. Cato

      Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

      Rankin, Captain James Stuart

      Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

      Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

      Remer, J. R.

      Young, E. H. (Norwich)

      Kidd, James

      Remnant, Sir James

      King, Captain Henry Douglas

      Renwick, Sir George

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Lloyd, George Butler

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

      Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

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

      Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

      Dudley Ward.

      NOES.

      Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

      Hartshorn, Vernon

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Ammon, Charles George

      Hayday, Arthur

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

      Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

      Rose, Frank H.

      Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

      Hirst, G. H.

      Sitch, Charles H.

      Cairns, John

      Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

      Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

      Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

      Hogge, James Myles

      Swan, J. E.

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

      Johnstone, Joseph

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

      Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

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

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

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Kenyon, Barnet

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

      Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

      Lawson, John James

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

      Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      Wilson, James (Dudley)

      Galbraith, Samuel

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

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

      Gillis, William

      Mosley, Oswald

      Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

      Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

      Grundy, T. W.

      Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Hancock, John George

      Newbould, Alfred Ernest

      Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Kennedy.

      Resolution agreed to.

  REPORT [20th March.]
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

      CLASS II.
      Resolution reported,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, a Grant in Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants-in-Aid; of the Agricultural Wages Board, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."
      Resolution read a Second time.
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move to leave out "£10," and to insert instead thereof "£5."
      We were all delighted to hear the very satisfactory remarks of the Minister of
      780
      Agriculture in respect of the International inquiry which he proposes to set on foot with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. I should like to ask one or two questions with regard to that inquiry. Does he propose to set it up at an early date, and if so, could he give us some indication as to when the date is to be? Is it suggested that it should be in the nature of a Royal Commission? I presume that would not be so, seeing that other countries are to be invited to attend. But can he tell the House what countries he proposes to issue invitations to attend the inquiry. Does he propose that the Dominions, Canada, Australia, the Union of South Africa, the United States, and countries on the Continent of Europe should attend? It would be of interest to the House and to the agricultural community if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some information on this point. He went on to say in the Debate the other day that he had great sympathy with the proposal that some of us

      781
      made that further efforts should be directed towards the investigation into the diseases of stock generally and into such problems as polluted land. I understood him to say his desire was to create an institute of research. May I again urge upon him that, before he sets up an institute for research into the diseases of animals on any extensive scale, he should first assist the efforts which are being made by private organisation to promote investigation into animal diseases. I suggest that it will be much better, more economical and much more efficient to assist financially an organisation such as the Diseases of Animals Research Association which has been started in Scotland than to set up an institute such as he proposes. This association has received the whole-hearted and enthusiastic co-operation of the agricultural community throughout Scotland. It is not within my knowledge whether any such organisation has been set up in England, but this organisation in Scotland has been welcomed by the Scottish agricultural community. Large subscriptions have been made to it, thereby relieving the State of the necessity of spending money which the State would have been asked to spend. In this way the interests of the agricultural community are brought right into the centre of animal diseases investigation and research. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman, knowing as we do the sympathy which he has for his office, will lend his support rather in the direction I have suggested than in the direction of creating any such institute as he proposes. The value to the country of real investigation into animal diseases can hardly be over-rated. I say, without fear of contradiction, that millions of pounds annually might be saved to the country if the result of the investigations are all that we hope.
      I wish to remove a misconception which may have arisen from a speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) a few nights ago. I am sorry he is not in his place. Had he been here, I would have endeavoured to administer a little soothing syrup to him, after what I would call his outburst of a few nights ago. I had referred to the desire of a great part of the Scottish agricultural community that the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts, as far as Scotland was concerned, should be handed over to the Scottish Board of
      782
      Agriculture. The hon. and gallant Member replied that the whole of the Scottish agricultural community was opposed to any such change, and he quoted, in support of that statement, a resolution passed by the county council of Lanarkshire. I might have quoted, if I had had the opportunity of doing so, a resolution passed by the county council of Aberdeen, strongly in favour of the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts being handed over to the Scottish Board. I forget the words that the hon. Member used, but he said that such a suggestion was part of a wild Scottish movement for Scottish Home Rule.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Can the hon. and gallant Member say that such a change could be effected without legislation?
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: No, Sir.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member cannot pursue the subject.
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The reason I embarked upon what I knew to be a somewhat perilous voyage was that this subject was debated at great length on the Committee stage of this Vote, and, with your permission, I desired to remove a misconception to which the hon. Member had given expression.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot say that there may not have been inadvertance on the part of the Chair, but it is quite clear now that the hon. Member is out of Order.
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The speech of the hon. Member lasted for 10 minutes. However, I will not proceed with that subject any further. I will conclude by expressing the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer some of the questions I have put to him in regard to foot-and-mouth disease, and that he will take into consideration the points I have made in regard to animal diseases research.
      Dr. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I should like to call attention to the amount expended under Item "M. 10," on the employment of trawlers. This expenditure was incurred in running trawlers and drifters to relieve unemployment among ex-service fishermen in 1919 to 1921. This

      783
      involved the country in very considerable expenditure. After deducting the Appropriation-in-Aid, we find that it has cost the country something like £50,000. Why did we have all this unemployment amongst ex-service fishermen in those years? One of the principal reasons of the unemployment then and now is due to the fact that Dutch trawlers are bringing large quantities of fish into our ports, which they sell in competition with fish caught by our own ex-service fishermen. In days prior to the War that fish was almost entirely sold to German buyers. As things stood in 1919–20, the Dutchmen bought or exchanged as much fish as they could for German marks, which were, however, constantly depreciating in value, as they are now, with the result that they are now taking no more of them, and they are bringing their fish into our ports and selling them in competition with our men. The British owners bought their trawlers at a very high price, and consequently find it difficult to run them, and the effect of this competition has undoubtedly greatly accentuated the distress amongst the fishermen, and necessitated grants such as this being made to endeavour to diminish the distress which has occurred.
      Another reason for this unemployment among our trawlermen is that when fishing off the Icelandic coasts, however far they may be from territorial waters, they are never safe from arrest. They are always liable to be boarded by some Iceland officials and taken into port, and whatever they may have done, they are always heavily fined. Very often it is not necessary for them to be arrested at sea. They put into port under stress of bad weather, and they are boarded by a large party of armed men. The captain is told that two months ago he was seen fishing off such and such a cave inside territorial waters. It is no good the skipper denying it. He is taken into Court and the Vice-Consul, who is not an Englishman, advises him to plead guilty on the ground that it will save time and that he will probably get off with a smaller fine. In the majority of cases the skippers are mulcted in fines of anything between £20 and £50. A great deal of this unemployment would be avoided if on the Icelandic coast, or in some Iceland ports, we had a real Englishman as Consul, who would take some interest in defending the rights of the fisher-
      784
      men which the nominal representative of this country out there does not consider it necessary to do.
      Another reason why we have this unemployment is that off the Russian coast at present no British trawler is safe. About a month ago the Hull trawler "Magneta" was fishing off the Murmansk coast. She was arrested by a Russian gun-boat stationed there to protect their own fishermen. She was taken up the roadstead and ordered to anchor. The skipper protested that the anchorage was unsafe. He asked permission to change his position, and was refused. That night it came on to blow, and the "Magneta" dragged anchor and went on the rocks and became a total wreck, and no fewer than ten of the crew were drowned. Another boat, the "St. Hubert," was arrested three weeks ago fishing eleven and a half miles off the coast and taken into the roadstead, and there she lies still. One way of obviating unemployment among the trawler men I suggest would be to send a gun-boat to the Murmansk coast with instructions to the captain to see to it that the Russian gun-boats confined their activities to their own waters. There are a few suggestions, so that in future we may avoid having to ask the taxpayers of this country to pay sums like this to relieve the fishermen who, if properly looked after by this country, would be able to earn their own living. I support this Vote.
      9.0 P.M.
      Dr. MURRAY: I have listened with great interest to the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not accept his description of innocent duds given to the trawlers that go out from Hull to fish in other waters. I do not object to this grant to them to relieve unemployment, but they go to other parts of the country and produce unemployment in these places. The City of Hull has been built upon the profits of fish stolen from our waters and within the three mile limit too. I am not going to sympathise with Russia or Iceland. I do not know much about them, but if the stories with regard to the three mile limit, which the Hull trawlers tell when they poach in our waters round the Western Isles, are of a piece with the stories which they tell in Russia and Iceland, then the people in these countries very often have right on their side, because I never met a Hull

      785
      trawler yet—and I knew a good many of them—with very much respect for the three mile limit, no matter in what waters they were fishing. I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the amount of illegal trawling which is proceeding on the West Coast of Scotland at present and of which I receive many complaints. Also I do not accept the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman of the unemployment caused to men in the herring industry. There is a grant provided here for helping ex-service men with drifters. These drifters are usually herring drifters. The real reason why there are so many thousands of men, and not only fishermen, but fishergirls, coopers, carters and others connected with the curing of herring industry in the various fishing ports of the country unemployed is the fact that the Russian markets have been closed and the Government did not take the matter in hand in time when some of us wanted them to do what they could to open up the Russian markets. When it was suggested from these benches that we should have trade regulations with Russia it was said, "What, shake hands with murderers!" It was nearly as bad as shaking hands with Michael Collins.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in order on this Vote to discuss the question of opening up relations with Russia.
      Dr. MURRAY: When Ministers are asked about subjects which are decided by the Cabinet, each Minister says that he is only responsible for his own Department, and yet we are told that we have the principle of Cabinet responsibility.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That can be argued when we come to the Vote for the salary of the Prime Minister.
      Dr. MURRAY: As we understand that the salary of the Prime Minister is not going to be paid for more than two or three weeks longer, I do not know whether it will come on. I will not pursue that, but it is the fact that unemployment in the drifter-fishing industry is due largely to the Russian policy of the present Government.
      Major COLFOX: Is it possible to do anything to redress the grievance felt by certain fishermen who complain that trawlers frequently come along and cut away their lobster pots, which are never
      786
      recovered? Can anything be done by way of reparation for these men who lose their pots?
      Mr. ROSE: I wish to get some information as to the meaning of this Vote. I would like to know if it has any connection with a co-operative scheme which was got up about the time that is covered by this Vote, and I would like also to know how this Vote has got mixed up with what seems to be a heavy War responsibility in connection, not only with trawlers, but drifters?
      The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): If my hon. Friend had only been here last Monday he would have heard me explain the Vote very fully. It is a very simple matter. In 1919 there was a number of ex-service fishermen out of a job for this reason. They served in the War and did splendid service. Their boats, trawlers or drifters, were still in the hands of the Admiralty, and the Admiralty had on hand a great many trawlers and drifters which they were willing to divert back to the fishermen's service. As the boats belonging to these men were not available the Admiralty took the opportunity of securing these boats on behalf of these particular ex-service men at that time, and this enabled them to take part in the big autumn herring fishery of 1919. The scheme was continued for about a year and a half. Then, owing to a general slump in prices, we found that we were losing money, and we thought that we ought not to continue competition on the part of the State with private enterprise. Therefore it is closed down. The scheme did not lose a lot of money. The total gross expenditure was £245,000. The receipts were £190,000, and the loss, therefore, was £55,000, but the actual loss in the trading was only £15,000, and the other £40,000 is accounted for as follows: £20,000 for reconditioning the ships, that is, converting them back from war purposes to fishing purposes That had to be done in any case. The other item was £20,000. One vessel was totally wrecked. As the House knows, the Government does not insure, because its business is on so big a scale that the premiums paid would exceed any benefits received, but as this particular vessel happened to be lost, and it was being used under the orders of my Ministry, I had to debit my Vote with that £20,000.

      787
      This was a purely temporary scheme, and though I sympathise very much with the grievances of the fishermen, I do not think that that subject arises on this particular Vote. This arrangement was made to meet a special emergency, namely, fishermen being out of work when they returned from the Service and had not received their vessels back from the Admiralty. As to the grievance of men fishing outside the three-mile limit being wrongly accused of going within the three-mile limit and receiving alleged bad treatment, if my hon. Friend will send me details I will have them looked into fully. It has been said that unemployment has been caused amongst fishermen because Dutch trawlers come into Hull and other ports and sell their fish. That may be so, but, after all, we are still a Free Trade country, and I do not know that in this particular instance we can depart from that policy. Certainly we cannot do so without a decision on the part of the House which would be of a largo and very grave character.
      Colonel L. WARD: Not under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
      Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, because that Act does not apply to articles of food and drink. I am sorry I cannot answer my hon. Friend who raised a question about lobster pots. If he will let me know more about the lobster pots I will have full inquiry made. I was asked a question about foot-and-mouth disease. What I said the other day was this: Although we have taken very strong measures to stamp it out, we are not satisfied with the present condition of our knowledge, and we wish, therefore, to take every opportunity of research into the history of the whole subject, with a view of preventing such an outbreak in future. I said, therefore, that I proposed three things. First, a departmental inquiry to go into all the circumstances of this outbreak, that is, largely from the administrative and legislative point of view. Secondly, there was the research side. A previous Research Committee, appointed by my predecessor, had failed to make good. I said that to carry on research in this country alone would not be a very wise procedure. I pointed out that on the Continent, unfortunately, they always have the disease, and I proposed, therefore, to approach one or
      788
      two foreign Governments in Europe and to ask them whether we could not carry out on the Continent some kind of international research. I cannot specify further what we should do. It depends very much on the reply that I get in the first instance from the French Government. The United States Government had a most serious outbreak a little while ago, and stamped it out. If we could only put our experiences together, and make common use of them, we might be able to make discoveries which would be impossible in this country alone and have been impossible up to date.
      Therefore, I am seeking with the Foreign Office to start some kind of international inquiry into the origin of foot-and-mouth disease and the methods by which the disease is spread, with a view, as I hope, of preventing the recurrence of such an outbreak as we have just had. I further said that on the question of animal diseases generally there was much more to be learned, and I hoped that part of the money which was voted in connection with the repeal of the Corn Production Act might be devoted to starting the research on a much bigger scale and on a permanent basis into animal diseases generally in this country. I cannot give any details, for this reason: A Committee of the Development Commissioners has just been sitting to consider this particular question, and has made its report. I received the Report only yesterday, and so far have had no time to read it. I would like to consider that Report and to consult my advisers about it. I agree entirely that it is no good starting new institutions when you already have some foundation on which to build. Therefore, before we take any definite step in the way of starting any fresh institution, we shall certainly take stock of all the institutions now existing in the country and shall see in what way we can proceed best.
      Amendment negatived.
      Considered in Committee.
      [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

      ARMY SERVICES (EXCESS), 1920–21.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to make good

      789
      Excesses of Army Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1921."
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): As the Committee knows, an Excess Vote is not on quite the same footing as a Supplementary Vote, in that it has to go before the Public Accounts Committee to be examined before presentation in this House. This Vote has been before the Public Accounts Committee in the usual way, and I now present it to the Committee of this House. A statement has been issued showing the exact position, but I want to make clear to the Committee that we now present it in this form so that the House may maintain its control over expenditure. I think I can show there is a definite excess in the Appropriations-in-Aid for Army services for this year above the excess payments. If hon. Members will kindly look at the figures which are shown in three columns in the paper, they will see, only so much of the actual excess Appropriations-in-Aid has been deducted, as will leave a deficit of £100, in order that this Vote should be brought before the Committee. The actual excess expenditure amounted in round figures to about £5,250,000. The real excess in Appropriations-in-Aid came to something over £5,300,000. That excess of cash payments was due to insufficient allowance being made in the Supplementary Estimate of December, 1920, for the cost of the extra troops employed in Iraq, in consequence of the rebellion. The actual disbursements largely consisted of charges incurred for the assembling and despatching of reinforcements, and the War Office could not possibly accurately ascertain or estimate what the expenditure would be. The extra receipts did not come to light until some time later, and they are really the result of the sales of stores and other transactions between other Allied Governments and ourselves, and these did not take place until some time subsequent to December, 1920, when the Supplementary Estimate was presented. The actual excess of the Appropriations-in-Aid over the excess disbursements will be seen by the difference between £5,258,443 and £5,330,894. There really was an excess of Appropriations-in-Aid over disbursements, but in order to regularise the position and bring it within the purview of the Committee
      790
      the Appropriations-in-Aid have only been taken advantage of to the extent of leaving £100 deficit which therefore brings this Excess Estimate before the Committee. That is the whole explanation of the situation.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £50.
      I would ask the attention of the few Members who are present in the Committee to a remarkably complete example of locking the stable door after the horse is stolen. That is what the excess grant really is. There is one correction I would make in my hon. and gallant Friend's statement. It does not refer to this year; it deals with the year 1920–21 and not with the year 1922. What really happened in this case? It is set out perfectly candidly in the explanation. I am very glad to see this access of virtue. Evidently it is a sign not of mere reformation, but of a regeneration of spirit in the manner in which accounts are going to be dealt with in the future. There was, owing to insufficient allowance being made in the Supplementary Estimate of December, 1920, an excess of no less than £5,250,000. How did they deal with that? Did they come back to the House of Commons and ask for authority? Not at all. I hope I am fairly stating it and, if I am not, no doubt I shall be corrected. They saw they were in for a bit of luck, and how did it arise? It "came to light," as the very frank words of the explanation state, after December, 1920, in the process of clearing up war accounts. That process resulted in a windfall which was seized with great eagerness by the War Office. They promptly took £5,258,343 of it and said, "Go to! We will acquire this sum with the exception of £100, which we will bring before the Committee just to show what very honest gentlemen we are and to give them an opportunity for going into the whole matter." That is exactly the position to-day. I think this is a convenient opportunity of informing ourselves as to the basis as to which this Excess Vote moves, because there are no less than two more of them to follow. There will be Civil Service Excess Votes also, and those who are interested in the control of the House of Commons over finance will wish to see upon what basis these move. If hon. Members will turn, at some subsequent time, to Erskine May's "Law and Usage of Parliament"

      791
      —the edition which we owe to the learned Clerk of the House—they will find the following. I am sorry if my hon. and gallant Friend objects to these elementary lectures.
      Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, no.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: Everybody has not the very special knowledge which he possesses, and some of us require to be reminded of these matters—I certainly do. It will be found in the volume I have indicated that
      "The Commons resolved on 30th March, 1849, that 'when a certain amount of expenditure for a particular service has been determined upon by Parliament, it is the bounden duty of the Department which has that service under its charge and control, to take care that the expenditure does not exceed the amount placed at its disposal for that purpose.'"
      Thus, one of the greatest offences of which a Department can be guilty is the spending of more than they ask for. That Resolution was solemnly placed on the records of the House to make clear how important it was that these Estimates should be framed with the greatest possible care and particularity, so that due caution should be observed not only by those who spend the money, but by those who grant it—that is, the finance Committees of this House and the House itself sitting under the control of Mr. Speaker in the Chair. With regard to these Excess Grants, as my hon. and gallant Friend has stated, where this happens it all has to come before the Public Accounts Committee, and what we have now in the hands of Members is the result of the examination of the Public Accounts Committee of these accounts of the year 1920–21, and a very useful work that Committee does. The point about that is that the Public Accounts Committee is a Committee of this House itself. It is most important to remember that. Nobody serves on it except Members of the House, and there is this other most important fact in connection with it. The officer of that Committee is an officer of the House, a completely inde-
      pendent official of any Department in the whole range of the civil or defence forces. That is a very important fact to bear in mind.
      Therefore this Finance Committee, in the course of its operations, has reported to the House what has happened, and we have the Excess Grant before us on this occasion. The trouble about that is that we are dealing with a set of facts which happened rather more than 12 months ago. It only happens, owing to the operation of business here, that we have an opportunity of dealing to-night with a most-important matter in connection with the control of expenditure by the House of Commons. The pity of it is that these Reports come into our hands 12 months too late to enable us to do anything at all, and we can only just see what has happened, observe the Reports, and, perchance, take warning for the future. That is all, really, that we can get out of these Reports. But most illuminating documents they are, not only for this Government, but for all Governments, because, from what I have seen in this House, they all require very careful guidance in these financial matters.
      The sum asked for in this Vote is a purely nominal one. In the next Vote, to which I shall make reference when it comes on, a rather different state of affairs is disclosed, but here they have sufficient money to wipe out all expenditure by the Excess Appropriation-in-Aid. By way of pointing a practical lesson in these matters, therefore, I have moved a reduction of this sum of £100 by £50, and by that means I and those who act with me intend to mark our disapproval of the slipshod manner which has dominated the management of the country's finances by His Majesty's Government during the past year.
      Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £50, be granted for the said Service."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 125.

      Division No. 63.]

      AYES.

      [9.31 p.m.

      Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

      Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

      Hancock, John George

      Ammon, Charles George

      Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

      Hartshorn, Vernon

      Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

      Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

      Hayday, Arthur

      Cairns, John

      Galbraith, Samuel

      Hayward, Evan

      Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

      Gillis, William

      Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

      Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Hirst, G. H.

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Grundy, T. W.

      Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

      Hoggs, James Myles

      Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

      Holmes, J. Stanley

      Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

      Wignall, James

      Johnstone, Joseph

      Newbould, Alfred Ernest

      Wilson, James (Dudley)

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

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

      Kennedy, Thomas

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

      Kenyon, Barnet

      Rose, Frank H.

      Lawson, John James

      Royce, William Stapleton

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      Swan, J. E.

      Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. W. R.

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

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

      Smith.

      Mosley, Oswald

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

      Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

      Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

      Fraser, Major Sir Keith

      Pearce, Sir William

      Baird, Sir John Lawrence

      Gardiner, James

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

      Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Barker, Major Robert H.

      Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

      Perring, William George

      Barlow, Sir Montague

      Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

      Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

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

      Greenwood, William (Stockport)

      Pratt, John William

      Barnett, Major Richard W.

      Greig, Colonel Sir James William

      Purchase, H. G.

      Barnston, Major Harry

      Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

      Randles, Sir John Scurrah

      Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

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

      Rankin, Captain James Stuart

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

      Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

      Remer, J. R.

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

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

      Renwick, Sir George

      Birchall, J. Dearman

      Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

      Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

      Hills, Major John Waller

      Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

      Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

      Hinds, John

      Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Brassey, H. L. C.

      Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Breese, Major Charles E.

      Hood, Sir Joseph

      Seager, Sir William

      Brown, Major D. C.

      Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

      Seddon, J. A.

      Bruton Sir James

      Hopkins, John W. W.

      Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

      Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

      Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

      Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

      Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

      Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

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

      Hudson, R. M.

      Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

      Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

      Cockerill, BriGadler-General G. K.

      Jameson, John Gordon

      Steel, Major S. Strang

      Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

      Jephcott, A. R.

      Sugden, W. H.

      Conway, Sir W. Martin

      Johnson, Sir Stanley

      Taylor, J.

      Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

      Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

      Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

      Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

      Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

      Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

      Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

      Townley, Maximilian G.

      Edge, Captain Sir William

      Kidd, James

      Wallace, J.

      Ednam, Viscount

      King, Captain Henry Douglas

      Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

      Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

      Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)

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

      Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

      Williams, C. (Tavistock)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

      Loseby, Captain C. E.

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

      Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

      Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachle)

      Wise, Frederick

      Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

      Macquisten, F. A.

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

      Farquharson, Major A. C.

      Mason, Robert

      Worsfold, T. Cato

      Fell, Sir Arthur

      Molson, Major John Eisdale

      Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

      Fildes, Henry

      Neal, Arthur

      Young, E. H. (Norwich)

      Fitzroy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

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

      Ford, Patrick Johnston

      Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Forestier-Walker, L.

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

      Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

      Forrest, Walter

      Parker, James

      Dudley Ward.

      Question put, and agreed to.

      ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (EXCESS), 1920–21.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £1,040,172 6s. 4d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on the Grant for the Expense of the Ordnance Factories for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1921."
      Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: This Vote also has been before the Public Accounts Committee and has been approved by them, and is, therefore, presented to this Committee. It is presented as a result of losses on the ordnance factories at Woolwich and Waltham Abbey. The normal rule at the ordnance factories is that we do not put any manufacturing
      794
      work in hand without a definite order, and, therefore, in most years the expenditure is counterbalanced by the receipts, except that we have a token Vote of £100 in order to bring the account before this House. This rule was not applied in the year 1920–21. I must go back to the time of the Armistice to explain the reason for that. There were then a large number of employés at Woolwich, far in excess of the normal peace establishment. There were two alternatives before the Government at that time, either that they should discharge all the employés or else that they should endeavour to obtain alternative work. It was not at that moment possible to obtain alternative work to any large extent for definite orders, and, therefore, it was decided

      795
      that, in order to retain as many employés a possible, and to prevent us putting more than was necessary on to the unemployment grant, they should adopt some form of work which they thought would result in being able to balance their expenditure by the sale of the goods manufactured. It was decided that they should embark on building locomotives, and a hundred were ordered. The work was undertaken, and is still not quite completed, but I am afraid that up to now there are no purchasers for these locomotives. I am assured that they are extremely well manufactured, and we did our best to sell what were ready during last year, but without success. That results in an Excess Vote for the year 1920–21.
      There have been some other factors which have added to this Vote. A certain work which was undertaken for a definite order, but at competitive prices, was not able to be manufactured without a loss, and in addition to that there was at Waltham Abbey a complete cessation of orders. That factory was devoted entirely to the manufacture of propellers, and as soon as the Armistice came all manufacture was ceased. In order to keep on as large a staff as possible, labour was largely diverted to internal factory services, which could not, of course, be placed against any manufacturing order. There is one other point that arises on this Vote. There is, and has been for the last 30 years, what is called a Suspense Account. That arises in this way. Our financial year ending, as it does, on the 31st March, it is quite possible that in one week you may have a certain amount of wages which have been earned but not paid. If the 1st April, for instance, happens to be on a Thursday, there *are wages that have been earned during the first three days of the week, which, of course, are not paid till the Friday or Saturday, and strictly speaking the money that ought to be devoted to that purpose should be surrendered to the Treasury on the 31st March. The obvious inconvenience of that course was recognised 30 years ago, and it was decided to have what is called a Suspense Account, so that this money should not be surrendered, but could be devoted to the purpose for which it was originally intended without a further Vote of this House. That is, of course, not
      796
      the same amount at the end of each year, and the result in 1920–21 gave a net debit balance on the adjustment of the account of £130,000 odd. There were further losses incurred during that year. There was a loss on the sale of materials, entirely due to the sale of acetone. That is one of the ingredients in the manufacture of propellers. There was naturally a large supply of it at the time of the Armistice, and that had to be sold, and it was sold at a loss. Then there was a loss on the canteen trading. There had been that loss during the time before the factories returned under the War Office, and as soon as it was discovered steps were taken to counteract that, and there has been no loss since.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the hon. and gallant Member add to his statement an explanation of what the "other work" includes, in addition to locomotive engines?
      Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: There was a certain amount of general work for the Ministry of Food, some for the Post Office, some for the Mint, and some for the railways, including the repair of wagons, and on certain of the railway work we had a profit.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      This Vote, I think, will require a little more examination than the Vote which the Committee has just passed. It is the result of an interesting experiment by the State in undertaking private work, and therefore I issue a warning note to any of my Labour friends who followed me into the Lobby on the last occasion that they had better carefully note my remarks this time to see whether they feel justified or not in according me their support on this occasion when we go into the? Lobby. What this Department did was that they undertook to manufacture 100 locomotive engines. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on his admirable incursion into the realms of commercial advertising, because he pictured to us in most attractive terms what splendid engines they were, and how admirably they could be adapted for industrial operations if he could only find a purchaser. In so far as I know anything about these particular engines, I will gladly add my testimony to them, and let us hope that by the joint efforts

      797
      of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself these engines will speedily go off the stocks for commercial use at a proper commercial price. The complaint we are entitled to make against the Government in regard to this Vote is that, having decided from very good motives, namely, to prevent a sudden throwing of a large body of men on to the labour market—although, if my recollection be correct, there was very little lack of demand for labour at the time; however, the motive was quite a good one—they went into the work of making engines, and doing general engineering and repairing and other work for all Departments of His Majesty's Service. They did it for the railways, which were then under the control of the Government, and for the Post Office, and if anybody would give them an order they were prepared to take on the job.
      The net result of that was a loss to the State of £1,500,000, made up by some interesting items which will be found in the White Paper. The realised loss on orders at firm prices—that is, competitive prices—was, in round figures, £130,000. But at Waltham Abbey they also went in for a capital expenditure, presumably, as it was not chargeable to manufacture, of £154,000. They also went into the market and sold material. There they succeeded in making a loss of no less than £108,000. I should have thought they might have got much nearer squaring their canteen accounts than they did, but they lost £50,000 on their canteen fund. That is a very serious loss to make merely upon canteen trading, because if there be one thing that has shown a profit during the last four or five years, it has been the canteen departments. I think there has been a surplus of about 7 to 10 millions shown in the canteen accounts, but when we come to this special form of industrial activity by the Government, they lost on their canteens no less than £49,820, and, to wind up, there is a net debit balance of £130,319. I think I am justified, on the facts disclosed in this White Paper, in asking the Committee once again to mark its disapproval of the way the Government manage their business, by voting with me for the reduction I move of £100.
      There is one point I omitted in my general lecture on the last Vote, which I think I might add now. It shows that the War Office has been exceptionally
      798
      blameworthy for this reason. The Army and the Navy—I do not know whether the Air Force comes into it, but certainly the Army and the Navy are entitled, under special regulations, where they have saved money on one account, to put it to another account where they have lost money—that is, where they have overspent—and they are entitled to square their accounts in that way without coming to the House. But they have to come to the House—and this is my charge against them on the year 1920–21—whenever the total expenditure for the year has exceeded that provided in the Estimate. The other Departments have got to come here anyhow, but the War Office and the Admiralty are only brought to account when their total expenditure has exceeded the total amount granted to them by this House in the Estimates which are given for authorising their expenses. Therefore, there is that little addition to their sinfulness, to which I draw the attention of the Committee in moving a reduction.
      Mr. A. HOPKINS0N: We ought really to go a little bit further into these dealings with locomotives. We have here an Army Vote in which £1,000,000 is going to be devoted, not to Army purposes, but to Poor Law outdoor relief-and nothing else, at a time when the Secretary of State has told us that the British Army is being reduced to one division, and one cavalry division.
      The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that these transactions have been completed before the 31st March, and brought into the account by the 31st March, 1921.
      Mr. HOPKINSON: I submit that we are entitled to discuss the figures of this Vote, and the figures include £1,000,000 devoted to the manufacture of locomotives, which have nothing whatever to do with Army administration. They were manufactured purely to give outdoor relief to men who would otherwise come either on Votes of the Government or of local authorities; and this has been camouflaged in the form of an Army Vote at a time when the Army is already being starved for money. And mark this well! The Financial Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, have advertised these locomotives, as locomotives which are undoubtedly very

      799
      fine and beautiful. But I would ask them to bear in mind that there have been large armament firms in this country making locomotives since the Armistice. The experience of these armament firms has been a very disappointing experience indeed. The manufacture of a locomotive is not a thing that any man can undertake in a hurry. You cannot easily turn over works that have been making guns and munitions, tanks, and things of that sort, to the making of locomotives. Therefore, do not let hon. Members think that because these locomotives are completed and painted in the shops we have finished with the expense of them. Inexperienced builders do not in the very least know how locomotives have got to be made and before they can make them work satisfactorily in actual service they may have to be entirely reconstructed.
      The second point is this, that in this country already there are scores of army locomotives, locomotives made for use in France, by what we called the R.O.D., main line locomotives of powerful design, and, I believe, first-rate locomotives in every way. And I say there are scores of these in the Government's possession, which cannot be sold and which are lying rusting in the sidings up and down this country at the present day. Under these conditions does the Government think it right in order to provide work for workmen at Woolwich Arsenal, in order to, keep these men off Poor Law relief or being on unemployment insurance, to start this building of locomotives? I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman one other point about these locomotives. I see a hundred of them are put down on the Vote with the sum of £582,000 standing opposite to them. Do we understand that these locomotives have cost to manufacture at Woolwich Arsenal something in the neighbourhood of £5,000 apiece? It seems to me that there is a good deal more behind this than what the House has been informed of. It looks as if these locomotives have been built for £5,800 odd, while, as a matter of fact, we know perfectly well that locomotives built under conditions such as this must cost greatly in excess of that figure and in excess of what locomotives would cost built in a proper engineering establishment. I do
      800
      hope, therefore, that we shall have some real explanation as to whether this £5,000 odd is just the loss as compared with the valuation, or whether it really does represent any considerable part of the real cost. But what I really wish to say is this: That I do protest, and I trust the Committee will protest also, against charging outdoor relief on an Army Vote at a time when the Army is being starved.
      10.0.P.M.
      Mr. HAYDAY: I rise to speak upon this matter from quite a different point of view to that which has been submitted by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). We must first of all remember that at the apex of the activities at Woolwich Arsenal there were employed there something like 60,000 workpeople. That was during the period covered by this Vote. Towards the end of 1920 there was a request made that some alternative work might be provided for the purpose of stopping the sudden discharge of something approaching 30,000 of the men. If that alternative work was provided, as it was in part, by the erection of these locomotives, then I say it was a valuable and useful work to undertake. It may appear that there has been some loss, but the alternative was the dismissal of a large number of workpeople in one area, and that area not a very large one either. It is absurd to say that out of that very large number of men that the Arsenal had not at its disposal plant and efficient mechanics who wore equally able with anybody else to erect efficient locomotives. I can imagine that if the cost in that direction was a little higher than anywhere else it would be because of the establishment charges, and that, to my mind, would prevent Woolwich Arsenal entering into the competitive market on equal terms with a private undertaking. I view with alarm the continuous discharges that have taken place at Woolwich. You may call it some form of casing burdens that would have fallen upon the boards of guardians in the Woolwich area if you like, but what is the present position?
      It is that over 60,000 men were employed, and that that number has been reduced to 10,000, which means again that over 50,000 men are already drawing some form of unemployment pay or relief from Woolwich and in its immediate neighbouring authorities, and we are told that

      801
      these discharges must continue. Rather than make more dismissals, as my hon. Friend suggested, what has been done was to spread the dismissals over a longer period so as to lighten the burden, and the putting of workpeople into a state almost of panic. If you had not entered upon this work, although you may have a loss on the manufacture of the locomotives, and in their ultimate sale, it is possible that you might have broken down the Poor Law machinery and so added to the burden of unemployment payments. We would have been faced with a much graver situation had not this provision been made.
      Mr. HOPKINSON: Why put it on the Army Vote?
      Mr. HAYDAY: I well remember the matter being discussed at the time and the Government and the War Office being urged to carry out some form of alternative work. I am sure that under the same circumstances in competition work they have been able, with fair success, to undertake competitive work—
      Mr. HOPKINSON: Where?
      Mr. HAYDAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of this Vote will, no doubt, be able to explain, because I happened to be connected with the Whitley Council dealing with the Ordnance Depots under the War Office. I know that month by month these matters are mentioned to us by way of information, because we have been most anxious on the Whitley Council to see to what extent alternative work could be undertaken by the great Ordnance Departments under the War Office. We have been informed that certain work has been competed for in the open market, but by reason of a huge establishment such as Woolwich the necessary overhead charges have to be considered, and that burden has placed upon the Department in competition with outside firms a heavy handicap.
      Mr. HOPKINSON: It does not com pete with private firms.
      Mr. HAYDAY: It does compete, and it has been successful in competition with outside people. These two items, locomotives and other work, amount to a total cost of £850,000, and that expenditure has been the means of preventing
      802
      mass dismissals from the Woolwich Arsenal, and therefore we have not sufficient grounds to impeach the Department to the extent which some hon. Members wish.
      Colonel LAMBERT WARD: The War Office cannot be congratulated on the re-transference of these ordnance factories from the Ministry of Munitions, and I do not think they can be congratulated on the result of this particular year's trading. I wish to call attention to a significant paragraph which appears further down on the first page, which is to the effect that work taken at competitive prices resulted in a loss. Does the Committee fully understand what that means? It means that in the case of work taken on by these Government factories it is costing the taxpayers more than it would do if the same work was done by private enterprise. We have just heard that the reason for that was the gigantic establishment and overhead expenses which Woolwich had to pay. Private firms have overhead and establishment expenses, and in addition to that they are compelled to find interest on capital, an obligation from which Government factories are absolved. There is also a sentence referring to the staff at Waltham Abbey which reads:
      "Labour was largely diverted to internal factory services."
      That might mean anything. Docs it mean that some men were set to work shovelling sand into a cart, and other men came to shovel it out? I see that the loss amounts to £154,000, so I suppose they may be congratulated that the result of their year's trading is better than it was at Woolwich where they lost £582,000. There is also a loss on canteen trade. That means that not only were the Arsenal competing unfairly with the local tradespeople, but that the latter, as taxpayers, were compelled to make good the loss on trading incurred by their competitors. That is the most unfair item in the whole of this Excess Vote. For these reasons I shall have much pleasure in supporting the reduction of this Vote.
      Mr. JOHNSTONE: It has been made quite clear that the ordnance factory at Woolwich cannot produce the goods they manufacture at anything approaching a competitive price. We have not yet arrived at the full loss upon the manufacture of these locomotives, because they

      803
      are not all finished, and the work will have to go on. I sympathise with the view which has been expressed in regard to the hardship of discharging a great body of men from Woolwich at the conclusion of the War, and I think the Government were quite justified in trying to seek work whereby those men could be employed. I should like to inquire if there was anything to indicate that a ready sale would be found for locomotives of this kind. Were any inquiries made as to whether there was any demand for those locomotives, or did the Government rush into the manufacture of 100 locomotives blindly and baldheadedly, without any consideration as to whether there was a market for them. This is a most disquieting circumstance, and I hope that as a result of this uneconomic experiment at Woolwich that an end will be put to this kind of trading, and that these factories will confine themselves to the purpose for which they were established, namely, the manufacture of guns and ordnance. No doubt they will cost the taxpayer far more than if they were manufactured by private enterprise, but we have to reconcile ourselves to that. These factories, with their extravagant administration and overhead charges, cannot possibly manufacture goods at competitive prices. The ordnance department took on other work besides locomotives, and in the explanation they say:
      "Other work was taken at firm (competitive) prices which were payable on completion, and did not cover the full cost shown by the manufacturing accounts."
      I hope the Government will take these disastrous experiments to heart, and no longer engage in undertakings of this sort in any of their factories, but confine themselves to the work which the factories were designed to perform, and not enter into the manufacture of articles of this sort. It is clear that there is something wrong with the whole of the administration. The cost of building a ship in a private yard is £1 per unit but in a Government factory it is 30s. per unit. There is no longer any justification for the Government entering into these manufacturing processes at all, and I trust they will never renew that operation.
      Mr. WIGNALL: I do not wish to join in the general condemnation of the Government for undertaking work of this
      804
      kind. One has to realise that, after the Armistice, there was a big slump in trade and there was a general demand in the House for putting into effect the Report of a Committee recommending that certain commercial work should be undertaken by the dockyards and by the ordnance factories if possible. At the time when it was reported that the locomotives were to be constructed, I do not remember that, with the exception of a Member here and there, anyone condemned the Government for going in for private work. There certainly was no general condemnation expressed at that time. We have to realise the pressure that was brought to bear on the Government. There was a big demand, not only from the Labour benches, but from Members on the other side of the House, who were touched by the fact that they represented constituencies like Woolwich and Waltham Abbey. They brought as much pressure to bear on the Government as anyone could do, because they were so closely in touch with the people affected, and I have a clear recollection that many Members of the House actually cheered when it was announced that the Government were undertaking to construct these locomotives. The experiment has not been a financial success, but it is not all loss. There is a good deal to be cut out of the total loss represented on the Paper, because employment was given to many hundreds or thousands of people during a very critical period, and the material is still there. The locomotives, I assume, are good enough to sell, and will sell, I believe, before very long. Presumably they are constructed in such a way that it is quite possible, if the boycott of private firms is removed, that they will find a market, if not in this country, in some other country before very long, when the present depressed condition of affairs has passed away.
      There is another item as to which we are entitled to further explanation, that is the loss on the canteens. I feel we have not had sufficient information concerning this matter. A sum of nearly £50,000 is a very big amount to lose in one year in any concern, and looking at the item it would seem to me that the canteens must have been run free to all comers, that no charge was made for the goods supplied, and that there was a liberal salary list for those who were looking

      805
      after the concern. The Committee is entitled to know how the loss is made up and if it has been due to a failure to get proper prices for the goods consumed. This item does not really explain whether this is a loss on all the canteens, or whether it is simply a loss on one canteen. It says, "Loss on canteen trading, £49,820 0s. 11d." There is nothing, so far as I can see, to explain whether the loss is spread over a wide area, including all the Government factories and the dockyards, or whether it is simply confined to Woolwich and Waltham Abbey, or to either. Canteens are necessary in dockyards and in large factories such its Woolwich and Waltham Abbey, and I do not say, as one hon. Member has said, that these canteens enter into competition with local traders. The canteen, properly conducted, is a necessity and a convenience in the place where the operatives are engaged. But canteens ought not to be run at such an enormous loss as this, and I do think we have a right to demand a fuller explanation of how the loss came about. Whether it was through misappropriation, or through selling cheap beer or cheap food, or giving it away, it takes a lot of explanation to explain away a loss of nearly £50,000 in 12 months. Although I am not blaming the Government for the loss incurred on the construction of the locomotives, because that, I believe, was unavoidable, I do blame them for the want of explanation of losses incurred where no very serious loss, if any at all, ought to exist. Therefore, I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some explanation as to how this loss has been created, and the reason for it.
      Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I want, first of all, to take exception to a statement made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson). I feel certain that he did not mean it in the way in which he said it, and in which it might appear when read in the Press, namely, that this Vote means voting for the Army money which ought to have been paid in outdoor relief. I feel certain that the hon. Member does not mean it in that way.
      Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Oh, yes, I do, entirely.
      Mr. MACLEAN: Then I take it that, as an employer of labour himself, he
      806
      thinks, when he employs men to work for him, that he is giving them outdoor relief. These men were employed in manufacturing locomotives and doing other work—
      Mr. D. HERBERT: Which did not pay.
      Mr. MACLEAN: The fact that it did not pay does not mean that they were receiving outdoor relief. It means that their employers, like some others who were private employers, did not estimate the costs sufficiently well to enable the price to meet the cost. But the value of the labour has been put into the material, and if the hon. Member means it in that sense he is grossly insulting men who showed their capacity, during the War, to produce the things that were necessary to keep the troops and the Navy going with the things they required to fight the enemy.
      Mr. W. SMITH: And cheaper than private enterprise.
      Mr. MACLEAN: And cheaper than private enterprise, as they brought down the price of shells and other things. The words that fell from the hon. Member are a gross insult to the working men of this country, and particularly of Woolwich and Waltham Abbey. One of the points in this connection is that at Waltham Abbey there was not sufficient work to keep the men employed, and they were put on internal work. I should imagine that that was maintenance work, such as necessary repairs and the changing of certain machinery in order that it might be used for some different purpose from that for which it had previously been used. I should imagine that that was adding to the capital value of the factory. It is not a loss; it is preparing the establishment for further production of a necessary character, and it ought to have been charged to some of the capital accounts of Waltham Abbey.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): It is not down here as a loss.
      Mr. MACLEAN: It is down here as a loss, and it has been quoted by practically everyone who has spoken as a loss sustained at Waltham Abbey by the Government. That is why I am making the point that it ought to have been charged to some capital account, because it adds to the value of Waltham Abbey if they have been doing repair or maintenance

      807
      work with the machinery and plant there. Another item that requires some explanation is the 100 locomotives which have not been sold. An hon. Member said some were not completed yet. I take it we have not 100 locomotives lying there in an incomplete condition. I should imagine quite a number of them are complete and ready to be placed on the rails. We gave away £60,000,000 to the railway companies, money they claimed they were entitled to for the use made of their railways during the War by the Government. Why were not some of these 100 locomotives offered to the railway companies as part payment? Business men laugh at a business transaction. Possibly hon. Members might be afraid to travel to the House of Commons on one of these locomotives. But they have not been tried. Evidently hon. Members think these locomotives have been built purely for amusement. They may have been' built for the amusement that it gives to the hon. Member for Mossley to make speeches about them. But I am putting forward a feasible proposition. The locomotives are well made and substantial, as has been said on both sides, by the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government and by the right hon. Gentleman my clansman, the hon. Gentleman who wants the money and the hon. Gentleman who has moved the reduction so that he will not get all he wants. Surely that would have been a sound business deal. They might have said to the railway companies, "If you are having £60,000 from this country, then try some of these locomotives as well, and see how they run on your rails." [Interruption]. They would do all right for your country. They would carry the Vicars of Bray all round.
      There is another point that must be considered with regard to these locomotives. It is like the discussion that takes place periodically about the famine in Russia and the causes of it—the breakdown of transport. I do not know the gauge of the railways in Russia or of these locomotives, but why not enter into some deal in that way? They would be better employed in drawing food about in Russia than standing as monuments to the incapacity of the British Government. Something of that kind can be,
      808
      and should be, done. While I join with my right hon. Friend in opposing the method in which this money is being asked for, I do not think all the items in it call for the hostile criticism which has been devoted to them. Certain work had to be done. You had large numbers of men there who had done valuable work for you during the War. Were you going to throw them on the streets because the War had finished? Something had to be done to keep them employed, and the fact that they did not produce work on a paying basis is not their fault. There are hon. Members in this House who can carry in their minds the circumstances of certain firms where the members of those firms underestimated the cost of certain jobs. The hon. Member for Mossley laughs. I suppose he thinks that is an impossibility for him.
      Mr. HOPKINSON: I was thinking of a case in my own experience.
      Mr. MACLEAN: It must have been a very humorous one for the hon. Member to laugh at it like that. The Government requires no more criticism for un-estimating the cost of manufacturing locomotives than does any other employer of labour for under-estimating. It is to be hoped that in the further work which will be undertaken at Woolwich and Waltham Abbey, they will be able to make good any losses that have been incurred, and that in the next Estimate they will show a surplus which will cover these losses.
      Sir JOHN RANDLES: Hon. Members opposite seem to think that the beginning of unemployment was at Woolwich or Waltham Abbey, and that any enterprise undertaken to reduce that unemployment, however uneconomical or wasteful it may be, is comparatively unimportant so far as the rest of the community is concerned. When you put inefficient and incompetent appliances to work to produce, you are taking away employment and work from the private manufacturer who employs large numbers of other people, and in that way you are seriously reducing the volume of employment throughout the country. You are also doing it by an uneconomic process, and you enter into competition, with the result that you reduce the prices that are obtainable for these commodities by the

      809
      private manufacturer. In that way you bring about and accentuate the difficulties connected with the question of wages. When that competition is brought to bear, you immediately make it more difficult for the competitors who are in the business, and who have been legitimately in the business for a number of years, to secure orders at remunerative prices. So you not only produce unemployment, but you produce reductions in wages and then you produce that uneconomic condition in the country with which, unfortunately, we are very much engaged at the present time.
      I hope that the experiment conducted in connection with this concern will be abandoned, and that when there is a case of this kind again, and a case of hardship, we shall frankly, without any pretence, do what we can to relieve the distress in that particular place, and not throw the whole machinery of our industrial community out of gear because we are trying by artificial methods to maintain manufacture which is uneconomic, both in respect of the persons employed in it and also those who have to do with the sale of the commodity when it is finished. I am not stressing the fact that the locomotives that were manufactured are probably unsaleable. I am assuming that they were fairly good locomotives and that they might compete with other manufacturers, but it is very doubtful whether they will find a market. It is a bad experiment, and I hope the lesson will be learned, and that hon. Members opposite will not think that they are helping the unemployed when they do it by making unemployment in other directions, to a large extent reducing the prices of possible competitors, and making it difficult for the industry of the country to be carried on. I hope that they will study the whole question, and not think only of the immediate difficulty.
      Captain ELLIOT: This is an occasion of some importance. This is the funeral of the Socialist Labour party, and I am astonished that so few mourners are here to attend the corpse. When they are all gone they will get plenty of people to weep for them, because we shall never again get an Opposition so easy to destroy as the Socialist Labour party.
      Mr. N. MACLEAN: Another aspirant for a Parliamentary Under-Secretaryship.
      Captain ELLIOT: That is possible, but, at any rate, it will be a long time before any Member on that Bench is asked to occupy a position in any Government.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall): We are going a long way from Woolwich now.
      Captain ELLIOT: This is more germane to the subject of debate than any remarks that have yet been made in this Debate. Here is an experiment in State Socialism. It is clamoured for by Members on those Benches. This experiment was tried. It was challenged in Committee. A very weak defence was put up. The challenge comes up again on Report and there are none of the Labour party here to answer it. Where is that row of eloquent orators who get up and demand the nationalisation of our staple industries? They are not there. When we have the trial of this experiment whom do we find? Two Members who have spoken to-night. One, of them spent most of his time asking why this factory had lost £1,000 a week on canteen charges. No defence has been offered of the gigantic failure of this gigantic experiment except that one hon. Member said that these locomotives might be given to Russia, though he said he had no idea of what the gauge of the Russian railways was, and whether it differed from the gauge of English railways, or what were the conditions in Russia. But these things were not matters of great importance. They would be better in Russia than 'here because then we should not see them here. It was actually offered as an argument for giving them to Russia that the transport was bad there, though the locomotives built there by State Socialism had succeeded in breaking down the bridges across which it was tried to drive them, 60 that the last state was worse than the first. Why not have a serious argument put forward? I shall listen with interest to any serious defence of this experiment put forward by hon. Members on those Benches because this is an explanation of their theories and their experiments.
      Mr. SWAN: Which were successful according to Sir Eric Geddes.
      Captain ELLIOT: Sir Eric Geddes put forward great Estimates of what could be done.
      Mr. SWAN: And you kicked him out before he had time to do it.
      Captain ELLIOT: Where are the men who would defend this?
      Mr. RICHARDSON: Where are yours?
      Captain ELLIOT: Responsible Ministers are on these benches. The people who claim that the industries of the country should be put on the basis which has resulted in these gigantic losses being paid for by this much-despised private enterprise should have the decency to come down and attempt some defence of the policy which has produced this gigantic economic disaster in this limited time. As other hon. Members desire to speak I will not stand in their way—
      Mr. WIGNALL: Go on. We enjoy it.
      Captain ELLIOT: I am glad you enjoy it, but nothing is more terrible, or more appalling, to contemplate than the glee with which the Labour party observe the lavishing of enormous sums on State socialistic experiments, and the levity and flippancy with which they treat the inevitable and gigantic losses which occur. When you have an example of their experiments here, with the loss of a huge sum of money, it is treated with roars of laughter by the Labour party. Giggles from hon. Members opposite; cheers of delight. They say, "Go on; raise more money; throw it down the drain. There is plenty more where it came from. Take buckets of money and throw it away. At any rate, it is not private enterprise, but holy State enterprise, and therefore it must be good." They say, "Why not engage the unemployed on some productive enterprise?" They seem to neglect the important fact that it is not merely a question of making something but of getting something sold when it is made. Anybody may roar with delight about the munitions in the War. The facts have been quoted on every platform in the country and have been put into a book by that ignorant and arrogant man, Sir Leo Chiozza Money, as an instance of the success of State socialism—the State having been able to engage successfully in the mass production of an article which it could market in absolutely unlimited quantities. The mere fact that the marketing is the end of the transaction is entirely overlooked by the Labour party. That is proved by the
      812
      fact that they have produced 100 locomotives which are standing idle with no buyers. That is no real contribution to the reduction of unemployment, no help to the economic position of the country. The 100 locomotives are there and that is all that the Labour party asks for. There is something that has been done, they say. Some material has been wasted and labour has been used on something that is useless when it might have been used on something else; and they are all happy and contented because £1,500,000 of the taxpayers' money has been squandered on this ridiculous experiment. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] If any hon. Member of the Labour party has an argument to put forward, for heaven's sake, let us hear it. They put themselves forward as an alternative Government, and this, they say, is the system upon which they will run the country. If they are to run the country on this system let us have it explained before they try it on the gigantic industries on which the main portion of 47 millions of people of this country depend.
      Mr. SWAN: And one man out of six is walking the streets unemployed under the present system.
      Captain ELLIOT: That we have one man out of six walking the streets to-day is a terrible thing, and it would be more terrible if five out of six were unemployed and only one man were in a job, as would inevitably be the case if this system were applied throughout industry. No argument has been brought forward from the Labour benches. I resume my seat and challenge any Labour Member to produce some serious defence of this Vote.
      Mr. AMM0N: I am quite new to the House, but I shall venture to take up the challenge of the hon. Member. There is nothing more lamentable than to see anyone with the experience of the hon. Member start an argument cm false premises and proceed to knock them down, and then to indicate that that means the death of the Socialist Labour party, as he is pleased to call it. I remember that about the first day I came into this House I heard the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken putting in a plea to have certain mines subsidised in a particular constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "State socialism."]
      Mr. WIGNALL: Come over and join us.
      Mr. AMMON: I admit I have not much Parliamentary experience, but that certainly does seem to me to involve a slight inconsistency on the part of the hon and gallant Member.
      Captain ELLIOT: I was arguing in favour of large relief works. If you call this relief work, then I have no objection. On that occasion, I was asking for relief works in my constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "The same thing."]
      Mr. AMMON: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for the interruption. He has given his whole case away. All along we have been pointing out that this was put into operation, not as an experiment, but at a time when it could have been of considerable danger and difficulty to have suddenly disbanded some 60,000 men in a small area and thrown them on the local rates, to say nothing of the disturbance that would have been created in other regions. I was then outside the House, but I have some knowledge of the discussions which went on here, and it was then seriously put forward, and, as far as I know, accepted by practically every party in the House, that it would be in the nature of a good insurance to lay down these works and keep these men at work, rather than suddenly disband them and put them on the streets.
      Captain ELLIOT: The Army was disbanded.
      Mr. AMMON: The whole difference in the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member is that in the other instance to which I referred he wanted us to subsidise large capitalistic firms, or people interested, in order that a certain constituency in which he is interested might get some advantage from it. Here, on the other hand, the Government were doing their duty in looking after the interests of the community, as far as they could, and protecting the welfare of the men who, at a crisis in the country's history, worked night and day, not sparing themselves at any time, in order to deliver the goods and enable the men overseas to carry on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, they finished the contracts to time, not like the private em-
      814
      ployers, who would have let down the nation again and again, who would have kept over contracts, and who would have exploited the nation, even if it meant loss of life and the destruction of our men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Profiteers!"] This has to be remembered along with the other things.
      I remember, too, that Sir Eric Geddes pointed out in this House that Woolwich Arsenal was delivering trucks at £100 cheaper than they were being delivered by private firms. All this has to be carried into the account when we come to deal with it. The argument put up by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Sir J. Handles) was the most extraordinary I have ever heard. He talked about the turning out of goods, which reduced the price of certain others, in the market. The goods are not sold, and how on earth could they have done anything to reduce prices. This was the policy of the Government itself. This party here is a comparative handful in this House, and had the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) and others been in earnest some time ago, when this was first brought forward, it need never have been put into operation. This House cannot escape its responsibility, and if the hon. and gallant Member did not protest at that time he is equally responsible with hon. Members on these benches in regard to this matter We must look at the whole position.
      With all respect, I am bound to say that a good deal of what has come from hon. Gentleman like the one who has just spoken is humbug when they talk about this remunerative work. Ordnance work is at no time remunerative in the ordinary sense of the term. It is destructive effort. At least you have this advantage in this case, that you did something to preserve the moral of the workmen, and to prevent them from being thrown out of work and so swelling the ranks of the unemployed, when to do so would have caused considerable disturbance, and would have overloaded the burdened ratepayers in a very poor district to an extent that it would have been wrong to place upon them. This work, with all its failure, is being transferred to the taxpayers, but you have the goods, with the possibility of selling them. Even so, you are equalising the burden more than if the whole burden were borne on the

      815
      rates, and the people are not reduced in moral to the extent to which they would be reduced. While there is a good deal to criticise in the scheme as put before us, I take up the challenge of the hon. gentleman opposite, and I think we have maintained our position, which is, that this was an insurance against possible trouble and people being thrown on the rates, and that the Government are justified, inasmuch as they have the goods. It is up to them to do what any business firm would do, and to endeavour to find a purchaser for them.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the Committee would like some further information on some of the points which have been raised. The lecture started on the last Vote and has been continued on this Vote, and as I did not reply on the last Vote I think I may refer to it now. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) pointed out what a heinous offence it is for a Department not to limit its expenditure to the amount voted, but to come later on with an Excess Vote. I do not disagree with him at all. I think it is a thing which has to bejustified, and justified up to the hilt, because no Department ought to spend more than is granted to it. I do not follow, however, his complaint when he said we ought to have come earlier, because in the nature of things an Excess Vote is one which comes in the year following that in which the expenditure has been made.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I was attacking the system.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the right hon. Gentleman was attacking the system and not the Department which I represent, I will leave it at that. He asked, however, why it was necessary to have an excess Vote at all. He seemed to be extremely surprised, and already to have forgotten that there was such a thing as a war, because every single item in the particular Vote he was referring to was a remnant of the War which only came to light after the year in which the expenditure had been incurred. I would remind the Committee that a Committee of this House—the Public Accounts Committee—has examined this Vote in detail, that it has had the Accounting Officer of the Department in front of it, and has cross-examined the Accounting
      816
      Officer on each one of the items in this account. I agree that that does not prevent this Committee asking the Minister for further particulars. It is right that they should do so, and I am here for the purpose of answering them, but I want the Committee to remember that the detailed examination of this Vote has been made already by one of its own Committees, which has reported to the House advising it to grant this Vote.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I have not been able to find in the Vote Office the Appropriation Account from the Public Accounts Committee on this Vote at all. I have it on the Navy Appropriation Account for to-morrow. The only Vote, I can find in the Vote Office is an account for the year 1920, not 1920–21.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not sure about that without looking. My right hon. Friend called attention to the fact that there was a loss on acetone, and said, "What an extraordinary thing that there should be £108,000 lost on the sale of acetone. What can it mean?" It means that the Ordnance Department, during the War, had a stock of acetone, which stood in their books at a cost—quite likely a low cost. I am not concerned to argue whether it was at a high cost or at a low cost. It was not required. The War ceased, so the acetone was sold, and, in order to square the account, we have got to come and say that the acetone has been sold at a loss of £108,000. That is why the figure is in this account. It was suggested that the Waltham figure was entirely a loss. It is not entirely a loss. It is stated that it is an expenditure which was not voted in the year 1920–21, and therefore it comes before the Committee now as an Excess Vote. I do not want the Committee to believe that the full amount of that expenditure has been added to the capital value of Waltham. A good deal of it was expended on maintenance and minor works, which probably do not add to the capital value at all, but it is not a loss, and it is not put down as a loss. It was a necessary expenditure.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I did not say it was a loss.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was said by another hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman asked why there

      817
      was a loss of £50,000 on the canteen. Of course, I made the same query. It is not the loss of a year.
      Sir F. BANBURY: Where was the canteen?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was established during the War at Woolwich, not providing merely tea and buns and cigarettes, but food. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that at one time during the War there was a considerable difficulty in supplying those who were on national work with food, and therefore in this factory, as indeed in most private factories, a canteen was set up, and actual meals were supplied. Over a period of two or three years there was a loss of £50,000, or less than 14s. a person sup plied, over about 70,000 employés. It is a very small sum. I do not want to say that a Government Department running a canteen ought to trade at a loss. Of course, they ought not to trade at a loss, but when this was taken over by the War Office extra charges were put on, and there has been no loss in running the canteen since. This was again a war remnant, of a canteen set up by the Ministry of Munitions during the War, which I am now called upon to defend, and I cannot say that I feel much difficulty in defending it.
      The next point is the real point, and that is the Government trading. Let me deal first with the locomotives and clear up a minor point as to the estimated cost of the locomotives. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) suggested that this amounts to a cost of about £5,000 apiece. That is not so. The account says that £582,000 has been spent on these locomotives up to the 31st March, 1921. At that time they were not finished. This is a grant of money, not an estimate of cost. This is an Excess Vote of money for which the Committee is asked, up to the 31st March, 1921, of £582,000, which was their total cost at that moment.
      Mr. HOPKINSON: Does that not really mean that unless you sell the locomotives there is a dead loss?
      11.0 P.M.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If we never sold the locomotives, and that was all the cost, then the loss would be
      818
      £582,000. But I am going to say something more. That was only the cost up to the 31st March, 1921, which is the date of this account. There has been more money spent since, and the total cost of these locomotives is estimated at £16,000 a piece, and so the total sum finally to be spent on these locomotives is probably £1,600,000. I want to be quite frank with the Committee. I do not want the Committee to run away with the idea that they will cost half-a-million. They will cost a great deal more, but I will now review the circumstances. About December, 1918, just after the Armistice, there were something between 60,000 and 70,000 employés at Woolwich, and there was a question what was to be done with them. The work had ceased, or rather the manufacturing work for the War had practically ceased; at any rate, it had slowed down; and the question was, what was to be done? A great deal of pressure was brought to bear on the Government at that time that some alternative work should be started, and in May, 1919, orders were given to Woolwich, which was then being run by the Ministry of Munitions—the War Office did not take it over until well in the middle of the year afterwards—to put in hand 100 locomotives. The picture which the hon. Member for Mossley painted to the House was not at all a picture of that time. He said that the rails were strewn with locomotives that had come back from France, that they were all rotting, that there was no sale for them. What foolish people to put in hand, as alternative work, 100 locomotives! That is the prophet after the event. It is so easy to be wise after the event, but at that time there was no output of locomotives. There was an apparent great demand for locomotives, and, looking about for alternative work, always assuming that you were going to adopt the policy of giving alternative work, this was as good alternative work as you could find at Woolwich. There was a scarcity of locomotives, and if you were looking about as an engineering expert you would have chosen locomotives as readily as anything else—not if you were so wise as the hon. Member for Mossley, but the ordinary person who was not gifted with prophecy, would have done so, and these people did so. These were not Government officials.

      819
      These were commercial men, business men at the Ministry of Munitions, advisers, all looking about for some alternative work, and their eyes, unfortunately, fixed upon locomotives. Of course, if whoever was in charge of Munitions at the time had had the opportunity of consulting the hon. Member for Mossley, we should have done something else if we had to do alternative work.
      Mr. HOPKINSON: Then the whole of these R.O.D. locomotives lying about at the present time were in existence at the end of 1918? The stocks were there, and anybody, except the business men employed by the Ministry of Munitions, would have had the sense to see when these locomotives were brought back from France that there would be a great excess in England.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: There was no certainty that they were coming back from Prance, where they had been employed. I cannot fairly ask the Committee to listen while I further argue the question. I am simply stating the facts at the time. That we believed to be the position, and that is the reason why these locomotives were selected as alternative work. I do not want to deal at length with the policy of alternative work. The House at the time thought it ought to be tried. Of course, it is very easy to be wise after the event, but the matter was discussed, and at the time it seemed to be the right thing to do, and it was done.
      Let me deal with the other alternative competitive work on which losses were made. It was done at very good prices. The losses are exposed in these accounts. Some of this work maintained employment at Woolwich at the time. But I do not want the Committee to think that this was money that came out of the Army Vote. This was 1920–21, not this year at all. The whole of this work was done in 1920–21, and it was done for the Ministry of Munitions; it had nothing whatever to do with the Army Vote, either of the Vote this year or of any previous year. I do not want the Committee to think that the policy being pursued is to go out into the street for alternative work in competition with private employers. That is not the policy.
      820
      There is some work that can be done at Woolwich for other Government Departments. But there is no work there on which losses are being risked. I share with my hon. Friend the objection to Government trading. I am not going to argue that now, but the Committee ought to know that this is exceptional, and due to the conditions of the War, and that there is a minimum staff that has got to be kept up. They are making medals now—
      Mr. HOPKINSON: For the Government!
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Some of them are making medals, and there is one little order being completed of repairs to some railway wagons. Broadly speaking, however, they are on Government work, and it is right and proper that the minimum staff required for national safety should be retained there, and that they should be employed. They have got to be paid and they should be employed. I ask the Committee, therefore, not to have the idea that we are not quite conscious of the objections to Excess Votes, but I ask them to believe that both these Votes are War survivals, and to realise that by giving me this Vote they are not endorsing any policy of Government trading.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I want to say that my right hon. Friend has treated the Committee with remarkable but, not with him, unusual frankness. We have had a very useful discussion, and, as far as I am concerned, I have no desire to press this Amendment.
      Captain HOTCHKIN: With regard to these 100 locomotives. Very few of them, I understand, have been sold. [HON MEMBERS: "Divide!"] There was an opportunity some time ago of getting rid of the locomotives at a fairly remunerative price, but now they are almost unsaleable. It is a most regrettable thing that more business methods were not employed in regard to the whole of this business.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN rose to put the Question—
      Major HAMILTON: I understood that the Amendment had been withdrawn.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Amendment has not been withdrawn.
      Amendment negatived.

      CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESS), 1920–21.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £1,200, be granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for Prisons, England and Wales,' for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1921."
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
      Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Resolved,
"That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1921, the sum of £2,674,462 14s. 10d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Hilton Young.]
Resolved,
"That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, the sum of £8,762,420 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]
Resolved,
"That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, the sum of £196,732,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS [MONEY].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient that the limitation of one hundred and forty thousand pounds imposed by Section eighteen of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, on the moneys which may be provided by Parliament towards defraying the costs in such Section mentioned and be paid to the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account for Great Britain shall not apply to
822
moneys so provided in the current financial year."
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Arthur Boscawen and Mr. Hilton Young.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL,
"to remove temporarily the limit on the moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of the Diseases of Animals Acts," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

PAWNBROKERS BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

LOSS OF THE SUBMARINE H42.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel L. Wilson.]
Captain Viscount CURZON: I would like to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information about the loss of the H42?
The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): I will give the House all the information which I possess. The first telegram which was received by the Admiralty has already appeared in the stop press of the evening papers. It was from the Rear-Admiral at Gibraltar, and was to this effect:
"Secretary of Admiralty announces message received from Rear-Admiral, Gibraltar:
Regret report submarine H42 rammed by H.M.S. "Versatile" 9.30 a.m. to-day.
Was exercising off Europa Point.
H42 feared total loss with all hands in 500 fathoms.
Names officers and men will be issued soon as possible."
Since then a further telegram has been received from Gibraltar stating that a court of inquiry has been ordered for to-morrow, and giving a list of the crew.

823
I do not, of course, propose to publish these names until the relatives have been communicated with. A very short time ago the following telegram was received:
"The only further details yet known are as follows: Submarine H42 came to the surface 30 to 40 yards ahead of 'Versatile,' which was steaming 20 knots, and rammed submarine just abaft conning tower at right angles. No spare officers or men were in H42."
824
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the most heartfelt sympathy of the Board of Admiralty and of the Government with the relatives, and their deep regret at the loss of so many gallant lives. I am sure that the House and the country would wish to associate themselves with this expression of sympathy.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  ATTACHÉS AND ASSISTANT ATTACHÉS.
  ATTACHÉS AND ASSISTANT ATTACHÉS.
  MEAT SUPPLIES, HOME PORTS.
  MEAT SUPPLIES, HOME PORTS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  HOME SERVICE (MEDALS).
  HOME SERVICE (MEDALS).
  WAR MEDALS (SERVICE IN RUSSIA).
  WAR MEDALS (SERVICE IN RUSSIA).
  EX-SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
  EX-SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
  MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS, TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS, TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  COMPULSORY RETIREMENT (COMPENSATION).
  COMPULSORY RETIREMENT (COMPENSATION).
  ENTERTAINMENT DUTY (GARRISON THEATRES).
  ENTERTAINMENT DUTY (GARRISON THEATRES).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  ARTILLERY RECORD OFFICE, WOOLWICH (DISCHARGES).
  ARTILLERY RECORD OFFICE, WOOLWICH (DISCHARGES).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  AIR MINISTRY.
  AIR MINISTRY.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (TUBERCULOSIS).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (TUBERCULOSIS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  GRETNA FACTORY.
  GRETNA FACTORY.
  SCHOOL CLEANERS.
  SCHOOL CLEANERS.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS.
EDUCATION.
  EXPENDITURE, GERMANY.
  EXPENDITURE, GERMANY.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  DAY CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
  DAY CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
  FAIRCROSS SCHOOL, BARKING.
  FAIRCROSS SCHOOL, BARKING.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) ACT.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) ACT.
  GOVERNMENT BACON (DISPOSAL).
  GOVERNMENT BACON (DISPOSAL).
  FOOD DEPARTMENT, BOARD OF TRADE.
  FOOD DEPARTMENT, BOARD OF TRADE.
  MERCHANT SHIPS (WIRELESS WATCHERS).
  MERCHANT SHIPS (WIRELESS WATCHERS).
  MAIDSTONE PRISON (GOVERNOR).
  MAIDSTONE PRISON (GOVERNOR).
  PRISON GOVERNORS.
  PRISON GOVERNORS.
  ARREST, CHISWICK.
  ARREST, CHISWICK.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  FEMALE PRISONERS.
  FEMALE PRISONERS.
  TAXI-CAB FARES.
  TAXI-CAB FARES.
  WOOL TRADE (SCHEDULED MATERIALS).
  WOOL TRADE (SCHEDULED MATERIALS).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).
  DELEGATES, REPARATION COMMISSION (INCOME TAX).
  DELEGATES, REPARATION COMMISSION (INCOME TAX).
  SUB-POST OFFICE, BLACKFRLIRS ROAD.
  SUB-POST OFFICE, BLACKFRLIRS ROAD.
  GEORGIA.
  GEORGIA.
  PASSPORTS.
  PASSPORTS.
  SCOTTISH BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (CHARGES).
  SCOTTISH BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (CHARGES).
  CANCER.
  CANCER.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BABINGTONS DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords. I beg to move, That Lord Merthyr have leave to vote in the House during the remainder of the session.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, this Bill is purely formal, but it differs somewhat from those usually brought before your Lordships' House as it does not deal with irregularities in the building but with possible irregularities on the part of the incumbent.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed.

JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL Of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Alteration, of method of preparing jurors book.
(4) If any person who is marked as a juror or as a special juror in any of the electors lists
834
for the autumn register claims that by reason of some disqualification or exemption he ought not to be so marked, he may at any time within fourteen days next after the publication of the lists apply in the prescribed manner to the registration officer to have the mark placed against his name removed.
The registration officer shall, as soon as may be, take every such application into consideration and shall in the prescribed manner notify to the applicant his decision thereon.
(5) If the registration officer refuses to comply with an application made under the last preceding subsection or fails to notify to the applicant within the prescribed time his decision thereon, the applicant may within fourteen days next after the date on which the refusal of the registration officer is notified to him or the expiration of the prescribed time, as the case may be, apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for a declaration that he ought not to be marked as a juror or as a special juror, as the case may be.
Rules may be made by the Lord Chancellor for regulating the manner in which applications are to be made under this subsection and for requiring the decision of the court on any such application to be notified to the sheriff of the county and for authorising the sheriff to make the necessary correction in the jurors book.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "fourteen days next after the publication of the lists" and to insert "the period within which a claim to be registered as an elector may be made." The noble Lord said: The object of my Amendment is to increase the period of fourteen days mentioned in subsection (1), because I do not think that is a sufficient time in which to allow people to point out that they are improperly marked for jury service. I suggest a longer period, and I am glad to say that the Lord Chancellor, who communicated, I think, with the Home Office, the Department chiefly concerned in this matter, is willing to accept my Amendment in the terms in which I propose it. The period mentioned is, as a matter of fact, twenty-five days, and it is convenient that you should, have the same period in both cases.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, lines 21 and 22, leave out "fourteen days next after the publication of the lists") and insert ("the period within which a claim to be registered as an elector may be made").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, after subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection—

835
"(6) Where the claim of any person not to be marked as a juror or as a special juror in any-electors lists has been allowed by the registration officer or a court of summary jurisdiction, the registration officer shall, if he proposes to mark that person as a juror or as a special juror in any subsequent electors lists, give to him notice of his intention, so to do nut less than fourteen days before the publication of the electors lists."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is that where a person has once been allowed the right to escape jury service he should not again be starred without due notice having been sent to him that he is going to be starred as a juror on the electors list. I think it is right that, once a man has established his claim to escape service, he should not again be put on the list 'without notice. Again, I have consulted the Lord Chancellor, who has consulted the Home Office, and is, I believe, ready to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 (Abolition of present practice of striking special juries, anti provision as to description of jurors in panel, etc.):
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I understand after communicating with the Lord Chancellor, that the noble and learned Viscount will be prepared to consider on Report a point which I raised with regard to this clause. If that is so I shall be satisfied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord has raised a point which deserves consideration, and between now and Report I will place myself in communication with him.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

IRISH FREE STATE (AGREEMENT) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Provisions for giving the force of law to and carrying into effect Irish Agreement.
1.—.(1) The Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland set forth in the schedule to this Act shall have the force of law as from the date of the passing of this Act.
Provided that if an address is presented to His Majesty under Article 12 of the said Agreement, then as from the date of that address and until identical Acts making other provisions are passed by the Parliaments of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland, the powers exercisable by the Council of Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, shall, as respects Northern Ireland, be exercisable as from the date of that address by the Government or Parliament of Northern Ireland as the case requires.
Provided further that if an address is presented to His Majesty under Article 12 of the said Agreement, then as from the date of that address and until identical Acts making other provisions are passed by the Parliaments of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland, any appeal from His Majesty's Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland shall, instead of as provided by section 43 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, lie to the House of Lords in the same manner and subject to the like conditions as an appeal from His Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland lay to the House of Lords before the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920:
Provided further that it is hereby declared that the British Government does not seek under Article 10 or any other article of the said Agreement, to evade its just responsibilities to, and engagements with, public servants of His Majesty in Southern Ireland, and undertakes to continue responsible for payment of compensation or pension, as the case may be, to judges, officials, members of police forces, and other public servants on terms not less favourable than those provided for such public servants under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
(2) For the purpose of giving effect to Article 17 of the said Agreement, Orders in Council may be made transferring to the Provisional Government established under that Article the powers and machinery therein referred to, and as soon as may be and not later than four months after the passing of this Act the Parliament of Southern Ireland shall he dissolved and such steps shall be taken as may be necessary for holding, in accordance with the law now in force with respect to the franchise number of members and method of election and holding of elections to that Parliament, an election of members for the constituencies which would have been entitled to elect members to that Parliament, and the members so elected shall constitute the House of the Parliament to which the Provisional Government shall be responsible, and that Parliament shall, as respects matters within the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government, have power to make laws in like manner as the Parliament of the Irish Free State when constituted. Any Order in Council under this section may contain such incidental, consequential, or supplemental provisions as may appear to be necessary or proper for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this section.
(3) Any Order in Council made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either of those Houses within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Order is laid before it, praying that any such Order may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the Order so annulled shall forthwith become void, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which

837
may in the meantime have been taken thereunder; and any Order in Council made under the Act shall, subject to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, be of the same effect as if enacted in the Act, but may be revoked or amended by a subsequent Order in Council:
Provided that orders in Council under the Act shall not be deemed to be Statutory Rules within the meaning of section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
(4) No writ shall be issued after the passing of this Act for the election of a member to serve in the Commons House of Parliament for a constituency in Ireland other than a constituency in Northern Ireland.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, in subsection (2), after "elected" ["and the members so elected"] to insert "together with the Senate of Southern Ireland." The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships were yesterday so much occupied in considering the question of the breach of pledges to Ulster, with rather a long diversion in the shape of a discussion as to what were the duties, responsibilities and privileges of noble and learned Lords in this House, that I thought that, at the late period of the evening when my Amendment was reached, it was advisable not to introduce the totally different subject of the position of the loyalists in Southern Ireland. There was another reason why I was anxious to postpone my Amendments. Frequent communications on various subjects have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Provisional Government in Ireland, and it appeared to me that this was essentially a subject on which such communications might be made, and that if I were to postpone my Amendment until to-day there might be more chance of obtaining a favourable answer from His Majesty's Government than there would have been if the Amendment had been taken yesterday.
We are all agreed that in the present aspect of affairs in Southern Ireland it is necessary that this Bill should be passed into law. The great experiment must be tried. Our great witch doctor, if I may so style the Prime Minister without disrespect, has ferreted out Mr. Michael Collins as the only man in Ireland who, to use his expressive phrase, can "deliver the goods," and it is necessary that his Government should be invested with legal power in order that he may if possible once more enforce law and order in Ireland. We can only hope that the Prime Minister's intuition in this matter has been correct,
838
and that after the next General Election in Ireland Mr. Michael Collins may turn out to be a faithful, loyal and devoted servant of the Crown. In the meantime it appears to be agreed on all sides that whatever pledges to Ulster might be broken, whatever pledges to Southern loyalists might be broken, not one jot or one tittle of the Agreement between the Government and Sinn Fein must be altered.
There are, therefore, two points upon which I have to satisfy your Lordships and the Government in moving this Amendment. I must show, in the first place, that it does not infringe the terms of the so-called Treaty; and in the second place, that it is a desirable Amendment in itself. With the permission of the House I will first address myself to proving that it does not infringe the terms of the Treaty. May I ask your Lordships to refer to the Agreement which appears in the Schedule of the Bill. Article 18 is the first which affects this point, and it states—
"This instrument shall be submitted forthwith by His Majesty's Government for the approval of Parliament and by the Irish signatories to a meeting summoned for the purpose of the members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern Irdann—"
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, appealed to be under a misapprehension with regard to this. He seemed to think that it had only been sanctioned by Dail Eireann. That, of course, is a mistake.
There was a long discussion in Dail Eireann, when the Treaty was agreed to by a small majority, but subsequently a meeting was held according to the conditions laid down in this particular Article. The Republican members of Parliament absented themselves, and the Treaty was passed unanimously. The next step to be taken appears to me to be under Article 17, and to consist of two portions. The Article reads as follows:
"By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof and the constitution of a Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a provisional Governor cnt—"
Perhaps your Lordships will notice that the terms in which members of Parliament of the House of Commons are described in this Article are slightly different from the terms in which they are described in

839
Article 18. But instead of a separate meeting being called for this purpose, one would imagine that the natural procedure would have been for the Lord Lieutenant to have sent for the gentleman whom he thought should form a Government, and that that gentleman should have formed a Government, summoned a meeting of the members of the Parliament of Southern Ireland, and have taken a vote of that Assembly.
It appears that the members of Parliament of Southern Ireland at the meeting when they approved the Treaty were so carried away with their enthusiasm that they proceeded to elect a Provisional Government at once. Mr. Michael Collins, on behalf of himself and his colleagues, submitted their names to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant, on behalf of His Majesty, gave his approval, whereupon Mr. Michael Collins and his colleagues became His Majesty's Ministers in Ireland, under the name of the Provisional Government. Therefore, I contend that, somewhat irregularly, every condition laid down in the Treaty as to what Parliament was to do has already been fulfilled, and consequently any provisions which are to occur under the Bill now under the consideration of your Lordships, are supplementary to, and not an inherent part of, the so-called Treaty.
Now let me deal with what it is proposed to do. It is proposed within four months to dissolve the Irish Parliament. As your Lordships know, that Irish Parliament consists of a Senate and a House of Commons; and the fact that Parliament is dissolved does not have any effect upon the Senators, who are elected for periods, in most cases of ten years, and in some cases of three years.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Nominated.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Nominated in some cases and elected in others, and they remain Senators although Parliament is dissolved. My suggestion is that these Senators, together with the newly-elected House of Commons, should form the Parliament to whom the Provisional Government should be responsible. I know it is said that the Senate is not complete, but I think that as a matter of fact there are forty or forty-four Senators out of a total of sixty-four. I recognise that this is a matter to be settled if possible
840
by agreement, but if there is good will on both sides there ought to be no difficulty about that.
I cannot help remembering the letter which was written by Mr. Griffith in December, 1921, in which he said that he was most anxious to do all he could to consider the traditions and the wishes of the Unionist minority. Deeds are more forceful than words. Surely this is an occasion on which Mr. Griffith and Mr. Collins might show their good will towards the Unionist minority by taking this means of inviting them, at the very outset of the new Constitution, to join with their fellow-countrymen in the rehabilitation of their common country. It does not bind Mr. Collins to the particular forum of Senate set up by the Bill of 1920. It only makes use of the existing Parliament in the same way as it makes use of the House of Commons, and if you think of it the position of Senators is a peculiar one. It is like that of Mahomet's coffin, suspended midway between earth and heaven. They exist, but are not allowed to function. I venture to hope that since my Amendment was put down His Majesty's Government may have been in communication with the Provisional Government in Ireland, and may now be able to state that Mr. Griffith is glad to take this opportunity of redeeming, at the earliest moment, his pledge that the Unionist minority in Ireland should be consulted and should take part with their fellow-countrymen in the future government of Ireland.
I would ask your Lordships to look at the question not only from the Irish but also from the Imperial point of view. Surely it is very dangerous to set up a precedent of Single-Chamber Government. There are many instances of Parliaments being granted to Dependencies by the Mother of Parliaments, and in every case these Parliaments have been of a bicameral nature. Take the case of Canada, or of Australia, or of South Africa. I am aware that there are instances, although they are very few, of Single-Chamber Government—there is a recent one where consent was given to a Bill abolishing the Legislative Council in Queensland—but in every case it has been a Provincial Parliament, with limited powers, and it has been at the special request of the particular Colony. Have your Lordships thought whether this is a wise occasion on which to depart from the precedent which has been our rule ever since dependent Parlia-

841
ments were granted? Consider the critical position of Ireland. Is it desirable that the extremists in Mr. Griffith's Provisional Parliament should be able to say: "Why should we have a bicameral Parliament in Ireland when the Imperial Government thinks this unicameral Parliament is sufficient for us?"
Perhaps the House has not considered I hat very large powers are given to this Parliament. It is given powers to legislate in the same way as if the Irish Free State had been constituted. It is able to raise up a tariff barrier, and to change the Marriage Laws. I wonder whether His Majesty's Government have considered of what men that Parliament is likely to consist. It is possible that Mr. de Valera may have a majority in it, but, even supposing he does not, it, is reasonable to suppose that Mr. Collins will have only a small majority and that there will be a very large minority opposing him. Does not the House think it is likely that he may have great difficulty in controlling that minority, that he may be obliged to yield to them in ninny ways, and that it is very possible that, although they may not direct their energies against this country, they may take the opportunity of passing legislation highly injurious to those who, in the past, have been the friends of England in Ireland?
I ask the Government if they really think they have no responsibility and no duty towards Southern Unionists. We heard a great deal yesterday about the broken pledges to Ulster, but we heard nothing about the broken pledges to the Southern Unionists, and they outnumber those to Ulster—by many dozens, I was going to say. We were promised, and we obtained, in the Act of 1920, safeguards as to additional taxation, representation, and many other things; and, so far as I can read this Bill, the only safeguard which we obtain here is a liberty to go to church, if we wish. And even then, if I am right in my reading of a particular clause with regard to marriages, it is very probable that, when this Bill has passed, and legislation has been carried in the Irish Parliament, an Irishman who goes to his parish church to be married will be very doubtful, when In, leaves it, whether he does so as a bachelor or as a married man.
I appeal to His Majesty's Government to see whether they cannot help us in this
842
matter. I have tried to show that it does not in any way infringe the Treaty. It certainly would be in the interests of Ireland that the Unionists should be represented, and I think it is in the interests of this country that a new precedent with regard to the setting up of a unicameral Legislature should not be lightly taken in hand.
Amendment, moved—
Page 2, line 30, after ("elected") insert ("together with the Senate of Southern Ireland").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I should like to point out to the noble Viscount, before he replies, that, although my noble friend has raised this question in a speech of marked moderation, I hardly think that the Government are aware how strong a feeling there is behind the action he proposes to take. I cannot decide whether this Amendment, if made, would infringe the Treaty Nearly all of us front the South of Ireland have avoided giving any vote which would do that, because of the special position which the Government have taken up, but certainly my noble friend has not overstated the nature of the feeling in the South of Ireland with regard to the entire desertion by the Government of all the pledges which have been given to us for the safeguarding of our interests. And, although I give the fullest credit and faith to the statements made on behalf of the Provisional Government, and although I have every reason to hope that they will act up to the undertakings into which they have individually entered with regard to the interests of all classes in the South, I think the Government must see that here and now in this Bill to lay down that the Provisional Government is at the outset to be responsible not to two Chambers, but to one which is there constituted, is to give an intimation to the whole of the people of Ireland that a unicameral Legislature is the natural order of things.
That, in itself, is a bad precedent, but by the terms of this clause there is no legislation which may not be passed by that single Chamber. Between Monday and Saturday a body of men who have had scant political experience may rush the Provisional Government into proposals of the worst possible character for all those who have up to now been responsible, as far as I know, for paying about one-half of the whole of the taxation of Southern Ireland, and probably more.

843
I mentioned one or two of these facts yesterday, but they evoked no response of any description from His Majesty's Government. I must enter a protest. Because we are all so moved by the condition of affairs on the frontier in Ulster they have no right to forget that one out of every ten of His Majesty's subjects in Southern Ireland is a Protestant, that there is no representation of them except by the members for Trinity College in this Irish House that they have called together, and that the Senate which was put into the Bill by this House was framed on lines which were universally approved three years ago by the Irish Convention. I think it was one of the very few questions carried without a Division in the final meetings of the Irish Convention. It represents every class, including the hierarchy in Ireland, and it cannot fail to be a useful and a steadying influence in the early days of the unravelling of this tangled web of Irish politics.
We had many other safeguards over which a steam roller has been taken by the Treaty. The Senate is actually in being now; it has not been removed by Act of Parliament; and to deny it the right to function, unless the noble Viscount feels that it actually traverses the Treaty, seems to me an unreasonable sacrifice for the Government to demand from those who have already made great. sacrifices in order to obtain peace in Ireland.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I do not apologise for intervening, though what I have to say may be very much to the same effect as that which has been said by the noble Earl (Lord Midleton), for I do not think it can be said that, during the past two days we from the South of Ireland have occupied very much of your Lordships' time. I want merely to urge that favourable consideration should be given to the noble Lord's proposal, and that no hasty refusal should be returned to him on this occasion. I am not going to argue on the words of the Treaty. I will be perfectly frank with your Lordships. I am inclined to think that Article 17 does only mean the House of Commons. I do not say I am right, and therefore I am not myself supporting this on that ground; but I press very strongly that the Government have a very grave responsibility to the Southern Unionists.
Ever since the Convention we have had
844
pledges, in and out of this House, by those who naturally and, I am sure, sincerely had some regard for the very difficult position of the minority in the South of Ireland, relatively large for they number 350,000, but so scattered that in no single place can they obtain any real measure of representation whatever. After the Convention, when, among other protections, there was suggested a Senate with the unanimous approval of every member of that Convention I believe, we came to the 1920 Act, when that Senate was, I frankly admit, recognised in the debates here, and we obtained many safeguards which we sought. Do you not think, on looking back, that, even in that hurried and difficult series of conversations that culminated in these Articles of Agreement, it might have been possible for the British representatives to have said: "You really must think a little of these people in the South; we must put in something for them."
I think I can speak for my friends when I say that it was a very great blow when we read those Articles to find in them really not one reservation for that minority. I hope, if you have not. done so already by communications with Mr. Griffith—who I believe to be a reasonable man and one who would recognise reasonable arguments if he could—that at least you will not say "No" to us here and now, but will make some effort to obtain assent to Lord Oramnore and Browne's proposition which we in the South regard—and it was recognised at the Convention that we were entitled so to regard it—as a very great protection, and a protection not only for us. The dangers of a new Parliament, a Free State Parliament or any other, arise in the first year or the first two or three years, and even if a somewhat undemocratic form of Senate were created it would last long enough probably to enable the members of the new Government to recognise the necessity of stability and of establishing a State that will endure and take a worthy place among the nations. I cannot put it higher than that. I believe that the Articles of the Treaty do not support it; but I submit as strongly as I can that we ought to have sonic assistance from the Government in this matter as far as they can give it, even if it be an infraction of the Treaty, by obtaining the assent that reasonable men ought to give if the Government ask for it reasonably.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Oranmore and Browne, has the object of inserting after the word "elected" in page 2, line 30, "together with the Senate of Southern Ireland." We are accustomed to hear the noble Lord address the House from the cross benches. I do not know whether his move portends any change of policy or whether it is the same noble Lord with the same policy. At any rate, I will endeavour to do justice to his Amendment, if I can. First of all, may I say that the Government are fully sensible of the great importance of the large minority of Unionists in Southern Ireland whose case has been so strongly advocated by the two noble Earls who have just spoken. But I cannot help thinking that on this matter there is some slight misapprehension in the minds of noble Lords. There are three periods to which attention might be drawn. The first is the present provisional period which lasts, of course, until, under Clause 1 of this Bill, the new Parliament is to be elected. During that period no question arises because there is not a Parliament to which the Provisional Government is responsible. Therefore, the noble Lord's Amendment does not, and cannot, apply to that, and I do not think it is intended to apply to that; because if you read the Article the Amendment clearly suggests that it is after the Election has taken place. I think the noble Lord assents to that.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Yes.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then we come to what I may call the second and third periods. The second period is from the time when this new Parliament—what I call the Constituent Assembly—is elected to the time when the new Constitution of the Free State is set up. That, I suppose, is the period to which the noble Lord alludes. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Desart, must be under some misapprehension in respect to that because he spoke of a unicameral Parliament lasting, perhaps, for two or three years.
THE EARL OF DESART: No. What I said, I think, on that point was that the first years of a Parliament were the dangerous ones, during which a somewhat undemocratic Senate was more necessary than at any other time.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is really the misapprehension to which I alluded, because this provisional period between the time when the new Parliament is elected and the new Constitution is made could not possibly be as long as two or three years. With that in mind, let me deal with the much shorter period between the time when the Parliament is elected and the time when the Constitution under the Free State has been agreed to both in Ireland and here, and when the fully fledged Parliament, therefore, is set up. This Parliament, when it is elected two or three months hence, whatever the time may be, will have one main duty—the duty of dealing with or passing criticisms, if necessary, upon the new Constitution. That will be its business, and that will be its business entirely, or almost entirely. And the period, therefore, during which it functions is bound to be very short, because the object of its existence will be to set up the new Irish Constitution. Therefore, I do not think that the fears expressed by the noble and learned Earl have much foundation, because we are dealing with a very short temporary period during which this new Parliament is functioning and discharging its duty of setting up the Constitution.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: That Parliament will be assembled under the Act of 1920, and elected by the constituencies laid down in that Act. Why, whether it is short or long should you exclude the Senate elected under the very same Act?
VISCOUNT PEEL: They are, I agree, the constituencies of the 1920 Act, but the Parliament will be elected for another purpose—that is to say, of making this new Constitution.
LORD CARSON: Does the noble Viscount say that it will not have power to pass any other legislation?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not say that the Parliament will not have power to pass any other legislation: but I do say that that is its first and chief business and that is the purpose for which it is elected.
THE EARL OF DESART: I do not know whether the noble Viscount ever reads the Irish newspapers or has any experience of public business in Ireland when he suggests that because any body in Ireland is elected to do any particular business, they will do that alone, or even primarily.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I confess I am placed in some difficulty if these Parliaments, when they are elected, do not discharge the duties for which they are elected. That is a position which is much more difficult to consider. But let us consider the proposal of the noble Lord in regard to the Senate. It is very natural that he should be deeply interested in that Senate because I believe it was owing to his creative and originative faculty that that Senate entered the field at all, and that he was the moving spirit in creating it. But that Senate, as he admitted I think, is in a rather peculiar position. It has never been constituted. He admitted that some of those bodies which were to select Senators for that body have never acted, and that it is now only a truncated body consisting, I think lie said, of about forty-four persons out of sixty-four. I am not quite sure what the condition of that body is, because it has never been constituted and it has not been dissolved; and consequently, it is a very difficult constitutional problem to discover what is the nature of its existence.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: It was called together for the purpose of taking the Oath, and most of the Senators have done so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But on the admission of the noble Lord only two-thirds of those Senators have ever been selected. Therefore, the body can hardly be called constituted.
A NOBLE LORD: All noble Lords do not take their seats in this House.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is unfortunately true that all noble Lords do not take their seats here, but they are capable of doing it and have the right to do it. These gentlemen, however, could not take their seats because they do not exist, and obviously that is a different position. If a noble Lord does not exist he cannot take his seat. That is the position of some of the non-selected members of this new Senate.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: That is only because they have not been called together for business. If they were called together for business the members of the Senate would take their seats. How many members of this House are there who are not present on the first day of meeting to
848
take their seats? I have no desire to occupy a position in two Houses, but I would point out that we have never been called together. I have been sworn but not called for business.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think that alters the situation. The noble Earl says they have never been called together for business. How can they be called together for business if so many of them do not exist because those bodies which were to select them have not functioned? That does not affect the question of whether they were called together for business. They are a truncated and semi-existing body. But whatever be the position as to their real existence, would it be a suitable or a wise arrangement that this body, constituted or unconstituted, should sit under the Statute of 1920, and be carried over, as it were, into this Provisional Government and become—and can become only for a short time—the Second Chamber of the Legislative House elected under a totally different Constitution under this provisional arrangement? The noble Earl throws some ridicule upon the action of Irish bodies—and, of course, he knows Irish bodies far better than I do.
THE EARL OF DESART: I did not pour ridicule; I only suggested ways of doing business. The Irish way is one way, and the English way is another.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I can only say that I have not the Irish way of doing business which, according to the noble Earl, is not to do business.
THE EARL, OF DESART: I did not say that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is the object for which they were elected, and surely they would address themselves to the task of setting up the new Constitution on which they were elected, and which had not been drawn up already by the Provisional Government. The third period is a very different period. The third period is when the new Constitution is set up, and the noble Lord's Amendment is not addressed to that period. As to what the Constitution of the new Irish State is to be, I understand discussions have already taken place as to the position of the Second Chamber under that particular Constitution. That is not a matter to be dealt

849
with by this Bill, but is to be dealt with in the instrument setting up the new Constitution. Therefore the Amendment of the noble Lord falls within a very narrow compass. It does not apply to the later period, and it does not apply to the earlier period, but merely applies to this intervening period, which will be very short.
LORD CARSON: Why will it be short? It may be permanent.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It cannot be permanent, because they will be elected for the purpose of setting till the new Constitution.
LORD CARSON: Will the noble Viscount say where in the Bill it is stated that this is only to be for a short time, or that there is any limit of time in which they are to set up the Constitution?
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is not, of course, in the Bill, because the Bill does not deal with it. The Bill only deals with this provisional period of time during which the new Election takes place. The Bill cannot have anything to do with the setting up of a new Constitution. That takes place after the new Parliament has been elected. I submit further to your Lordships that it would not be a suitable body, nor would it be wise to carry an old body, or a preexisting body, provided for under previous Acts, through the provisional period into the new arrangement that will exist when the new Parliament is elected two or three months hence. As regards the subsequent period, as your Lordships are aware, the question is being discussed whether there should be one Chamber or two Chambers, but with that matter this Bill has nothing to do. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, which deals only with this brief period, and not with the making of the new Irish Constitution.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I was very glad to find that the noble Viscount did not state that this is a wrecking Amendment, or that it has anything to do with the Treaty. Therefore, the House can decide on its merits without any fear that the Treaty may be affected by it. That is a very important admission to begin with. My noble friend further said that the Senate was imperfectly constituted, and I gathered from him that there was no way of rectifying that. May I
850
refer him to the Fourth Schedule of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920? The first clause of that says that His Majesty may, by Orders in Council, make such provisions as may appear necessary or proper with respect to the election of Senators. If the Provisional Government were to agree to this, and His Majesty's Government were to approve of it, there is nothing, I submit, to prevent His Majesty, by Order in Council, ordering a new election of county councillors and members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and representatives of those bodies taking their place with the other Senators of the new Parliament.
The noble Viscount further says that it is a very short period, and that it would be done away with by the new Constitution. But I would point out that it is a most dangerous period. It is the most critical period in Irish history. During those three or four months this Legislature will have full power to legislate on any subject, in the same way as the Parliament of the Free State. It will be a new and untried body, a great number of whose members may, for anything, we know, be convinced Republicans, and it may pass legislation of the most dangerous kind.
That, however, is not the only point to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention. I also desire to call your attention to a very remarkable admission of the noble Viscount. He states that this is not to be a House of Commons, but is to be a Constituent Assembly. The only thing in English history that bears the least resemblance to that was after James II left the country, and when a Convention decided that he had forfeited the throne, and was to be succeeded by King William and Queen Mary. Your Lordships may remember that our House then sat separately, and that the two Houses afterwards sat together as a Convention, and invited King William and Queen Mary to assume the throne.
Another remarkable admission was made by the noble Viscount. We were told that this Constitution when it was framed—I understood after some consultation with the Government over here—was to be submitted to the Irish people, and that when it had been so submitted and approved by them, it was to be sacrosanct, and this Parliament was not to venture to interfere with it in any way. If a line or a comma was changed the Government died, and the whole Treaty was of no effect. Now

851
we are told by the noble Viscount that the object of having this Constituent Assembly, as he is pleased to describe it, is in order that they should not only pass that Constitution, but criticise it. That shows what very great powers they can exercise. Instead, as we thought, of a Constitution being framed by the existing Provisional Government and then submitted to the people of Ireland, it appears that once it is submitted it is to be subject to criticism by this Constituent Assembly.
My history of other countries is somewhat vague, and I have not refreshed my memory. I have some recollection, however, of a Constituent Assembly in the time of the French Revolution which refused to be dissolved, and if I am not mistaken called itself the Committee of Public Safety, and was the precursor of the Reign of Terror. I do not think the assurances given by the noble Viscount are at all reassuring and I hope it is not the last word that His Majesty's Government may have to say on the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I listened with close attention to the observations of the noble Viscount and he explained with his customary clarity how the three periods might be affected by the provision which the Amendment is designed to alter. His argument was that during the present period this provision does not apply at all. Equally it would not apply after the Constitution is framed; but the provision of the single Chamber does apply during the middle period. That period is the period described in Article 17 of the Treaty, and it closes on December 6 next. That is to say, during that intervening period, from whenever an Election may take place in Ireland for the constituencies designed in the Act of 1920, Ireland will be ruled by a single Chamber.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It. cannot last longer than that period.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Exactly. The provision in the Treaty is that the "arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the date hereof"; and the date is December 6, 1921. Therefore, it is December 6 of the current year which closes that second period. What I want to ask is, how did it happen, when the terms of the Bill were being discussed with those who will be responsible for the Government of Ireland
852
during that interval, that nothing was suggested, or, if suggested, was not agreed to, giving some comfort to noble Lords who have raised this particular point? I think they are right in saying that His Majesty's Government, and the spokesmen of the Provisional Government, have expressed themselves in friendly terms towards the Unionists of Southern Ireland and desire that a body historically important, and in many cases personally distinguished as regards individuals, should play its part in the re-constituted Ireland. Here is an agreement the existence of which cannot be denied.
It cannot be disputed that during what may be a tolerably long session of the first Parliament it would be possible for the single Chamber of the Irish Legislature to pass practically any legislation it chooses affecting the property and general interests of those who have been opposed to them in the past. The noble Lord who has moved the Amendment, and those who support him, consider that the existence of a temporary Second Chamber of this kind would act as a certain safeguard to them, more especially if it were combined with some provision for a joint sitting for discussion, such as, I believe, was proposed and agreed to in the Convention. We should be glad to know whether the noble Viscount believes that such a course would meet with the serious opposition of those who are responsible for the Provisional Government. The objections to it do not strike me as formidable.
I cannot conceive that a provision of this kind would be regarded as a breach of the Treaty of the sort that would entitle the supporters of the Provisional Government to say that Parliament here was interfering with the agreed terms. I cannot help wishing that His Majesty's Government could have held out some hope that this provision, or some similar provision, might be inserted by agreement in the Bill, because it is clear that without agreement nothing can be inserted, and that they would, therefore, have consented to treat it in the way some former Amendments were treated; that it should be submitted in another place, and, of course, equally submitted to the views of the Provisional Government in Ireland.
On Question, whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 47; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wicklow, E.

Gainford, L.

Argyll, L.

Islington, L.

Somerset, D.

Chaplin, V.

Killanin, L.

De Vesci, V.

Lambourne, L.

Crewe, M.

Falmouth, V.

Lamington, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence E.

Linlithgow, M.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Buxton, E.

Askwith, E.

Mowbray, L.

Devon, E.

Atkinson, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L. [Teller]

Doncastcr, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Avebury, L.

Bellew, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Droghcda, E.

Buckmaster, L.

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

Iveagh, E.

Burgh, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Carson, L.

Raglan, L.

Midleton, E.

Desborongh, L.

Redesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desarl.)

Roundway, L.

Stanhope, E.

Dynevor, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Knollys, V.

Glendyne, L.

Knutsford, V.

Gorell, L.

Marlborough, D.

Peel, V.

Hemphill, E.

Sutherland, D.

Pirrie, V.

Hylton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Joicey, L.

Ancaster, E.

Kilmarnock, E. (E. Erroll.)

Bradford, E.

Abinger, L.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Aldenham, L.

Loch, L.

Eldon, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentio.)

MacDonnell, L.

Fortescuo, E.

Ashfield, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Howe, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L,

Phillimore, E.

Leven and Melville, E.

Bearsted, L.

Playfair, L.

Lucan, E.

Cawley, L.

Rotherham, L/.

Malmeshury, E.

Chalmers, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Saltoun, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Shandon, L.

Stamford, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Shaw, L.

Strafford, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, E.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Ernle, E.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Chilston, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Haldane, V.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the two later Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oranmore and Browne, are consequential.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The first is consequential, but the second is not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord wish to move the second?
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Yes, I wish to move it. I beg to move, in subsection (2), towards the end, after "Parliament of the Irish Free State when constituted" to insert—
"Provided that every such law shall cease to have any force or effect on the expiration of a period of twelve months from the date on which the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall have been constituted, unless within that period the law shall have been confirmed by resolution of the Parliament of the Irish Free State."
854
This Amendment is of a different nature from the last. Several speakers on the last Amendment laid much stress on the danger of hasty or ill-considered legislation by what the noble Viscount terms the Constituent Assembly which is to be set up to consider and criticise the Constitution of Ireland. It has been pointed out that in their leisure time they will have ample opportunity of passing other legislation, and the object of this Amendment is to provide that their power of legislation shall, like that of the Provisional Government, be only provisional.
Your Lordships will notice that in the Agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Sinn Fein representatives there is a special Article which limits the Provisional Government to a date not longer than twelve months after the signing of the so-called Treaty. It seems reasonable that, as the powers of the Provisional Government are not to extend beyond that date, neither should the powers

855
of the Constituent Assembly, which is being set up for legislation, be indefinite. I have carefully avoided inserting anything in this clause to imply that the English Parliament, or England in any shape or form, would be able to control the free action of the Irish Free State Parliament when set up, and, as your Lordships will see, I propose that any legislation which is passed by the Constituent Assembly shall have no force unless ratified by the Irish Parliament. I have specially provided that it is to be ratified by Resolution, so as to avoid the necessity of the Bills being passed into law through all their various stages.
I had thought, first of all, of suggesting a different Amendment, one which would have limited the powers of that Constituent Assembly to deal with such matters as the Constitution and those things in which the noble Viscount says they will be particularly engaged, but knowing what very critical days may be ahead of us in Ireland I thought it better not to limit the Government in the legislation they might find it necessary to pass. It does seem reasonable, however, to say that such legislation should not extend beyond a certain period. The fact that it can be ratified by a Resolution of the new Parliament will involve hardly any trouble for that body, and will enable them, if they wish, to give the effect of permanent laws to what I suggest should be temporary laws made by the Constituent Assembly.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, after ("constituted") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This Amendment is I think, in effect, really an interference with the full right of the newly-constituted Houses of Parliament, if I may so call them, of the new Constitution, to deal with any legislative matters as they like.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The noble Viscount said "Houses of Parliament." Is that a mistake?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said "Houses" advisedly, because I thought the noble Lord was very anxious that the new Constitution should consist of two Houses. The Amendment interferes with the rights of the Parliament. shall I call it, constituted under the new Constitution. It is really a suggestion that it will not do its own business, because whatever is done by this temporary Parliament can be dealt with
856
fully and freely by the Parliament under the new Constitution. They will be able to treat the whole of this legislation without any sort of restriction, and it is wholly unnecessary to interfere with their rights. There is one point further, which I should like to mention. It might put the new Parliament into great difficulty, because it is possible, probable in fact, that in order to carry on the business during this brief anti temporary period, the Government might require to borrow money. If it was only admittedly temporary, and there was no certainty at all that the right to borrow money would stand for more than twelve months or so, it might be extremely difficult to get anybody to lend. I think the Amendment is not necessary, and that it would be much better to leave perfect freedom to deal with these matters to the new Parliament constituted under the new constitution.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The speech of the noble Viscount only proves how absolutely wrong the Government were in refusing to give the security we asked for by the last Amendment. He has now specifically suggested that it may be necessary for the temporary Government to borrow money. In those circumstances how can he expect us to regard with satisfaction the passing of financial measures of great importance, when not a single one of the commercial men of Dublin who have made the prosperity of the South of Ireland can have a seat or be called upon to advise. The noble Viscount tries our loyalty very hard with regard to these measures that are forced upon us, and I think the Government are manufacturing trouble, not for themselves but for us, who want to see new legislation carried to the best effect in Ireland.
To suppose that a hastily summoned body, summoned for one purpose, is to take wide powers of legislation, and that then those who have the best right to be heard on financial matters will have their tongues tied, is really a travesty of fair play. I believe that those in power in the Provisional Government would welcome the presence of those who have been elected on the Senate, but the noble Viscount has managed; by a small majority, to put upon us, not for the first time, a disability against which we have made every possible protest. I do not know whether my noble friend intends to proceed to a Division, but I should very much prefer

857
to leave the responsibility upon the Government of a degree of injustice which I could hardly have believed would have been put upon us.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the cud of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:—
(5) In order to give effect to an agreement as to the date from which the month mentioned in Article 11 of the said Articles of Agreement is to run, it is hereby declared that this Act shall not for the purposes of the said Article 11 he deemed to be the Act for the ratification of the said Articles of Agreement.
The noble Viscount, said: I can introduce this Amendment in a very few words. Your Lordships will remember that I suggested this Amendment, but it was not accepted by Lord Summer, who preferred his own Amendment, which definitely stated that the "Ulster month" should run from the period when this Bill became an Act. Your Lordships thought fit to refuse to accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, and in the circumstances, this doubt having arisen as to the exact period from Which the "Ulster mouth" would run, I have proposed this Amendment. You will see that this particular Amendment defines that point quite clearly, and leaves it no longer in any ambiguity. It declares that the present "Act shall not for the purpose of Article 11 be deemed to be the Act for the ratification of the said Articles of Agreement," making it therefore perfectly clear that the period of one month, within which Ulster has an absolute right to contract out of the provisions of the Constitution, does run not from the date when this Bill becomes an Act but from the date when the Bill ratifying the Constitution becomes an Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, at end, insert the new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD CARSON: I must say I am very much astonished that the noble Viscount has reopened this matter, and that we have now got back to the whole question of the border dispute that is going on in Ireland. I do not think it could be reopened in a more unfortunate way. The Treaty is perfectly clear, as I read it, and as nearly every lawyer in the House who has spoken reads it, that the month is to run from the date of the passing of this Act. What does
858
the noble Viscount now want to do? I ask the House to look at the absurdity of it. He wants to put it off for an indefinite period—four, or five, or six months, whatever it may be— till after an Election has taken place in Ireland, the new Constitution has been framed, and the whole Bill has gone through this House. Then, with the heat that will develop in Ireland, he wants to leave them this open sore. For what purpose? For none that I can see except to try to leave it open to the Southerners and their Government to go on with this sniping and murdering and invading and raiding, with a view to intimidating the Ulster people from voting themselves out of this Act.
A more harmful policy I cannot conceive. It is on a par with the way in which the Government have managed the whole of this business. They seem incapable of putting anything before your Lordships in a clear and definite way, with a view of avoiding hostilities between the many varied hostile elements that exist in Ireland. Look at the Amendment and what it proposes to do, and just look at the absurdity under which we are asked to place ourselves. Here is a Bill which on the face of it says "the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great. Britain and Ireland set, forth in the schedule to this Act shall have the force of law as from the date of the passing of this Act," and the noble Viscount's Amendment wants you to say that although the Treaty has the force of law, and you are to set up Parliaments and Governments under it, it, is not to be considered as ratified. Did anybody ever hear of such a nonsensical provision to put into an Act of Parliament? All this is sacrosanct; all this is law; all this is the matter upon which the whole of the procedure in Ireland is to be framed; but it is not to be taken as ratified for the purposes of the particular Article which allows Ulster to contract out of the Act.
But it does not rest there, because the Amendment says—
"It is hereby declared that this Act shall not for the purposes of the said Article 11 be deemed to be the Act for the ratification of the said Articles of Agreement."
It does not say what Act is to be deemed an Act for the ratification of the said Articles of Agreement. There may never be another Act. Will the other Act be an Act for the ratification? How do we know? And all this tinge Ulster is to be

859
left within the Free State, and to have no power of voting itself out, notwithstanding the clear words of the Article in the Treaty, which says that until the expiration of one month from the passing of the Act of Parliament for the ratification of this instrument the powers of the Parliament of the Free State shall not operate in the North of Ireland, and if, before the expiration of the said month, they desire to present an Address they can contract themselves out of the Act.
How therefore does it stand? In the first place, this Treaty is to become an Act of Parliament, but you are to enact that it is not ratified. In the second place, you say that this Act is not an Act for the purposes of ratification, but you do not say what Act will be, or whether there will be an Act for the purposes of ratification. Therefore, Ulster is to be left in such a position that she does not know at what time, or in what circumstances, she will be relieved from the onus of staving within the Free State, and be able to vote herself out.
I appeal to the Government to withdraw this Amendment. It is far better to try to stop this irritation at the earliest possible moment. You already have the new Bill for the Constitution under consideration, you have the fight as to how near to a Republic you are to get—and you have plenty of work before you in the carrying of that Bill and you will have still more friction on the borders between North and South; and to allow this prolonged agony of Ulster to go on will prevent even the slightest approach to anything in the nature of a settlement of this dispute. I beg of you not to pass an Amendment of this kind now, which I thought, from what took place in the last two days, had been absolutely dropped by the Government, because they did not propose to put it in when Lord Sumner's Amendment was rejected.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I offered to do so.
LORD CARSON: Yes, but you did not propose it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said that I would introduce it in the Report stage.
LORD CARSON: Then I did not hear the noble Viscount say so, but he did not move it in Committee.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, there seemed to be some doubt as to the exact position in which it could be moved, and then I said I would move it on Report.
Loan CARSON: I cannot dispute the noble Viscount's statement, but I did not hear it at the time. If your Lordships like to take the responsibility now of leaving this open you can do so, but I can only say, from what I know of the North of Ireland, and from what I know of the South and West— which probably I know much better than I do the North—you are taking a most dangerous course, and one which will, for months and months, prevent any improvement taking place on the border.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I should like to make an observation in reply to the speech of the noble and learned Lord while what he has said is fresh in the minds of the House. I really think that there must be some forgetfulness of the exact course which this discussion has followed in the last few clays. On the Second Reading the noble and learned Lord complained that there was ambiguity in the instrument upon this point, and the case which he then very forcibly made was that some persons, in construing the Treaty, alleged that the option of Ulster must be exercised within one month after the passing of this Bill, whereas other persons alleged that the option of Ulster must be exercised within a month of the final ratification of the Constitution. The noble and learned Lord will tell me if I am wrong, but my recollection in such matters is not bad, and it is clear that at that time he did not particularly express a preference as between the two possible views.
LORD CARSON: The noble and learned Viscount is quite in error about that. I said that neither I nor any lawyer whose opinion I was able to take thought there was any ambiguity, but that we were told that the Government had been advised that it had a different construction, and I said that I thought it ought to be made clear, and that the construction we put upon it ought to be inserted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept, of course, what the noble and learned Lord says. He is more likely than I to recollect. with precision what he said, but

861
I do remember very clearly his saying: "I shall strongly advise the authorities in Ulster to take no risks, and to express their decision within the month on the assumption that the meaning is within a month of the passing of this Bill." There was a dispute. It so happened that I was never consulted as to the actual meaning of these words, because the late Attorney-General (the present Lord Chief Justice) was consulted, and gave an opinion upon it which, naturally, I neither examine nor criticise. But the doubt existed as to whether it meant a month after the passing of the Bill or a month after the ratification of the Constitution. This matter was most fully debated in Committee, and a proposal was there made that it should be a month after the passing of this Bill. The House debated that upon the merits, and rejected it. There only remains one other course. Of course, the House could not have debated that Amendment upon its merits except upon the assumption that the instrument, without the Amendment which we debated, did not bear that meaning. After having reached yesterday a decision on the merits, how could we do anything else but attempt to make the matter clear, so as to carry out what was at least the view of the then Attorney-General, advising the Government that the month was to run after the final settlement of the Constitution?
And, really, the apprehensions of the noble and learned Lord are not, I think, well founded. He says: "You are going to leave the quarrel alive for months and months until the settlement is made." Really, that is not so. The Boundary Commission cannot, in any event, be set up until the Irish Free State is set up, because it is expressly provided that one of the Commissioners is to be appointed by the Irish Free State and, therefore, the Boundary Commission cannot in any event be set up until the Constitution has been set is and until the Irish Free State has come into existence. On the merits, I think the objections taken by the noble and learned Lord on the technical side of the matter are really not well-founded.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, one would imagine from what we have heard from the noble and learned Viscount that your Lordships have been free to vote exactly as you liked on this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course they were. Why not?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If the Lord Chancellor will allow me I will tell him why not. I do not think the noble Lords who voted for the Government voted on the merits of the case at all. We have been told time after time that nothing should be amended, or altered, or explained lest the Treaty should be lost, and the majority of your Lordships voted for the Bill because you believed it was necessary to vote for it and for every detail that the Government put in.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Pardon me many noble Lords gave a perfectly independent vote.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am assured they did not.
LORD CARSON: They have told us so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think noble Lords are mistaken.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The exhortations of the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill have been in the direction of showing that a great catastrophe would occur if any alterations or Amendments were made in this Bill. There is something in the question which we are discussing now to which the Lord Chancellor does not seem to have devoted himself. This is a matter which does affect Ulster in the North of Ireland. It is an important matter. We have never been consulted as to when we should be allowed to vote ourselves out of the measure or put ourselves in. We have never been consulted as to when we could do that as a Government. I should have thought that would be necessary, and it would have been courteous of the Government to have consulted us on the matter. But they have not done so. The Lord Chancellor takes the high line here, and says that everybody must understand this and that, but he does not understand the atmosphere in which we live in the North of Ireland, and any suggestion that it is the desire of the Government to reduce the feelings of anxiety in the North of Ireland is entirely absent from any of the suggestions he makes. If he would enable us to contract ourselves out, whether your Boundary Commission is set

863
up some months after or not, he would do something to allay the feelings of a large number of people who, perhaps, are not so fully acquainted with your Lordships' intentions and have not the power of considering dispassionately very important questions. It is for that, reason that I ask the Lord Chancellor if he can consider t he suggestion of not pressing this Amendment.
After all, I do not know why the Government are determined to adhere to this suggestion that we should not be allowed to vote ourselves out of the Parliament which is shortly to be set up. It was really a most amazing situation—I can call it nothing else—that when we had been told most emphatically by the noble Viscount that we must not alter, or explain or amend this Bill, we were then taken into the confidence of the Government and allowed to listen to a letter in which Mr. Griffith very clearly explains that he has no feelings on the matter at all, and that the British Government are entitled to do exactly as they like in this respect. Notwithstanding that, the British Government desire to complicate the issue to a greater extent than it is already complicated and postpone to an indefinite date the time at which the North of Ireland can vote themselves out. I cannot understand the procedure of the Government at all.
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I wish to put before you an aspect of this matter which I think it will be worth the while of the Government to consider—namely, the practical aspect. There is a difference of opinion at present as to when the month during which Ulster may contract out is to commence, and the members from the North of Ireland are very interested as to when they may contract out, whether it is to be now or a few months hence. My interest in the matter is more consequential. It is as to when the Boundary Commission can be set up, because to my mind that is really the important practical matter at this moment. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack says that the Boundary Commission cannot be appointed even if this is the Act that ratifies the Treaty. I will endeavour to put some points before him to show that, in my opinion, the Boundary Commission could be appointed immediately after Ulster has contracted out.
As one wants the Boundary Commission to be appointed as soon as possible, one
864
naturally wants to give Ulster the right of contracting out as soon as possible. I do not know whether the House will be with me in this proposition, but the sooner the Boundary Commission is appointed the better; nor do I know whether the noble and learned Viscount will agree with me that, if it was possible, it would be a good thing if the Boundary Commission could he appointed to-morrow. I believe that is the only way of relieving the appalling tension which exists—it might be described in much more powerful language—on the frontier, and as long as the frontier question is left open so long will that go on. The cause of the friction is the uncertainty as to where the boundary is. If nobody knows where the boundary is the two sides will make their own boundaries. Ulster will try to keep what she has and the South of Ireland will be trying to nibble and assert its rights in various parts of the Six Counties.
It is a most unfortunate thing in my opinion that this boundary question was ever opened at all since it was decided under the Government of Ireland Act. It will be remembered that when the Government of Ireland Act was in this House I moved an Amendment to change the boundaries because on merits they did not appear to me fair and right, but my Amendment was not accepted and this House decided that the Six Counties were to constitute the boundaries. That, was done and an Election was held and members were elected from all the Six Counties to the Northern Parliament. That Parliament was opened with great pomp and ceremony by His Majesty the King.
I hold, therefore, that it was most unfortunate that the question was again opened. But it has been opened, and as it is unfortunate that it has been opened, is not the next best thing to settle it? I may take it that the members of this House are with me in saying that the sooner the Boundary Commission is appointed to deal with this question and settles, as it could in a month or perhaps three weeks, the boundary, the better. That would do something, I believe, to settle the appalling state of affairs which exists on the frontier, and which, apparently, the Government are going to watch for the next five or six months without doing anything. I see some suggestion of making zones. Ireland is to be re-partitioned into three Irelands.

865
The noble and learned Lord dealt with the appointment of Boundary Commissioners. I do not agree with his view of the question. If the noble and learned Lord will allow me I will give the reasons why I differ from him. Let me deal first with one possible obstacle to appointing the Commission. Does anybody object to this Act being considered a ratifying Act? I understand from the Attorney-General and the present Chief Justice in Ireland that they consider this is a ratifying Act, and we had a letter the other day submitted to the House by the noble Viscount in charge of this Bill in which Mr. Griffith said it was the opinion of the Irish signatories to the Treaty, and also the opinion of the present Provisional Government, that, strictly and correctly speaking, in their opinion this was a ratifying Act. Therefore we have the British Government and the other signatories agreeing that this should be considered a ratifying Act. There is no objection, therefore, on that ground to the immediate appointment of the Commissioners.
The noble and learned Lord says that the Boundary Commission is to be constituted of three gentlemen, one of whom is to be appointed by the Government of the Irish Free State, and he asked: "How can he be appointed until the Free State has come into being?" I would draw his attention to the fact that in the Article it says that one of these gentlemen is to be appointed by the Government of the Irish Free State. What is the Government of the Irish Free State? Surely it is the Provisional Government. I would refer the noble and learned Lord to Article 10 of the Agreement which says that the Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation to civil servants who are discharged by them. To what Government are you referring in that Article if not the Provisional Government? These gentlemen are now leaving their positions under the present Provisional Government, or are being discharged, and they are to be compensated by the same body—the Government of the Irish Free State. I submit, therefore, to the noble and learned Lord that the Government of the Irish Free State is the Provisional Government, and is not necessarily the Government that is to be constituted in the Irish Free State. I think that if the noble and learned Lord examines Article 10 he will agree with me in this matter.
866
The only other objection that I have heard taken to this course is that made by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, who said: "Would it not be a very unfortunate thing if Ulster, to clear herself, should contract out before she has had an opportunity of seeing what is to be the Constitution of Ireland?" That is theoretically and academically a correct statement. People should see exactly what they are contracting out of, but really that is not a practical issue here. We have heard, and the debates in this House have shown us, that Ulster is in any case going to contract out, no matter what form of Constitution is eventually drawn up. Ulster is interested—as has been made plain by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson—in the Constitution that will be drawn up when they see it working, and what will influence them as to whether they ever come into a United Ireland will be the way in which that Constitution works. Their decision is not dependent upon the actual nature of that Constitution, but on the way in which it works. For these reasons, and believing that I am speaking correctly when I say it is of the utmost importance in the interests of peace in the North of Ireland that this matter should be settled now. I have ventured to make these few remarks.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there is, I think, immense force in the argument advanced by the noble Lord who has just sat down to the effect that it is most undesirable in the public interest that the period which will have to elapse before the boundary question is dealt with should be needlessly prolonged. It is a period of suspense which must fill every one with great anxiety, but when it comes to the question of supporting or opposing the Amendment of the noble Viscount, I feel bound to say that I was under the impression that this matter had been debated at great length in a full House two or three nights ago, and that, with a knowledge of all the facts, your Lordships had decided to accept the view under which the Ulster month was to run from the passing of the Second Bill embodying the Constitution. It seems to me that it will be a somewhat violent thing to disturb that decision within a few hours of the time when it was arrived at.
But while I say that, I am hound to add that I very deeply regret that your Lord-

867
ships should have been able to do so little to relieve the tension of the position which now exists on the frontier of the Six Counties. It seems to me impossible to exaggerate the seriousness of that position. It is a most menacing one. Indeed, the noble and learned Viscount described it to your Lordships in vivid if not lurid colours. I recollect, by the way, that not long ago the noble and learned Viscount expressed satisfaction that for the future if "struggles and fisticuffs" arose in Ireland the blood that would be shed, and the fisticuffs employed, would be Irish blood and Irish fisticuffs, and not the blood of our troops. I wish to do him no injustice, and I know the noble and learned Viscount made a reservation in favour of the Province of Ulster. But let us get it out of our heads that the trouble which is now proceeding on the frontier of Northern Ireland is going to be one which will be merely a local and Irish trouble. It is going to be nothing of the sort. We know that thirteen British battalions are now available, and, I think, the noble and learned Viscount added, 15,000 police armed with rifles. What a prospect, what a beginning for an era which was to be an era of peace and mutual good will ! All this fills me with apprehension. We are now, it appears, to have a long period of suspense. Noble Lords say four months, but there is no reason why it should not extend a great deal longer than that, and during all that time this sore may remain open.
After that we are to have a Boundary Commission which is to be composed of an unimpeachable arbiter appointed by the British Government and two other members who, I suppose, may not be unfairly described as partisans. I want to ask this question. What is to happen supposing the impartial arbiter is not able to carry the other members of the Commission with him? Are we then to fall back upon coercion? I do not know whether there is any answer to that question. This Boundary Commission is regarded with the utmost suspicion by the people of Ulster because they think, and perhaps rightly, that, if they are not convinced by the arguments of the majority of the Commission there is coercion in the background, in spite of all the pledges and promises that have been given that in no circumstances is coercion to be resorted to.
May I also put this to the House? If we are to have this long period of suspicion
868
is it impossible to turn it to good account by an attempt, not imposed upon the Irish Government but made with their concurrence, to bring the parties together in order to arrive at an amicable solution of the difficulty? The noble and learned Viscount last night told us that the Chairman of the Commission is to be a reconciling party between two divergent opinions. Why should not this process of conciliation be resorted to as soon as possible, and resorted to under circumstances which will make it plain that what is intended is conciliation and not coercion. I have argued all through on the assumption that we have to deal with reasonable people and with men of good will, and I think that if this bugbear of coercion were got out of the way, and an attempt made to settle the question amicably by conciliation and by the good offices of the arbiter to be appointed by His Majesty's Government, a way may be found out of this hideous difficulty, which, unless something is done, may continue for month after month to impair the prospect of a peaceful settlement.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, may I ask the Government to consider the position in which your Lordships are placed in regard to this Amendment. In some cases where there has been a division of Irish opinion the Government have felt compelled to take a certain view. But, apparently, there is no difference of Irish opinion on this subject. Let me recall the position at the moment. We were told, and it has not been denied, that the Provisional Government wish to get this question settled at the earliest possible moment. The members from Ulster have also made it perfectly clear that the whole opinion of Ulster is in favour of an early settlement. We from the South of Ireland, who have long desired to see the union of the South and North, realise that it is absolutely impossible to hope for it under present conditions, and every month of delay makes the conditions worse and makes it less likely that Ulster will come to terms with the South.
Does any member of your Lordships' House think that within the next three or four months, after all the provocation there has been, that there is any chance of Ulster throwing in her lot with the Free State? It seems a little hard when you look back to the discussion in the Committee stage, when members from all parts

869
of the House pressed the Government to support; Lord Sumner's Amendment fixing the date as starting from the passing of this Bill. Everyone in Ireland wishes it, and the Government, at their wits' end how to bring to an end this state of unrest on the frontier, adhering to a policy which is theirs, and not the policy of any of the Irish Parties, are insisting that your Lordships should pass this Amendment. Although it is not very usual in this House to endeavour on Report stage to reverse a decision come to in Committee, I feel that we must meet the criticism of the Lord Chancellor, and, therefore, in order to make it quite clear, I will move an Amendment to the noble Viscount's Amendment. My Amendment is to leave out the word "not."
The effect of this will be that the date of ratification will be after the passing of this Bill; within a month Ulster will have to make her decision, and immediately after the Boundary Commission may begin to sit. That is according to the Treaty. I urge your Lordships to consider the responsibility you are taking upon yourselves if you decide to keep up this state of unrest, at the wish of the Government, and paralyse the efforts of the Southern Government; to get into action by having for months to come this question of the boundary on their hands. For the purposes of a settlement I regard this as the most-important: step which has been taken, and I urge the Government; to reconsider even now the policy they have put forward.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out ("not").—(The Earl of Midleton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, after a long discussion, one of the fullest I have heard in your Lordships' House, you decided on the Committee stage—
THE EARL OP MIDLETON: By nine votes.
VISCOUNT PEEL:—in a large House, that the "Ulster month" was to run from the passing of the Act establishing the Constitution of Ireland, and now, at the last moment, the noble Earl has moved an Amendment the effect of which is to reverse entirely that decision so solemnly arrived at and throw the whole of this matter into complete confusion. I think I am realty entitled to complain of the way this Amendment has been treated. Consider what happened in the Committee
870
stage. I was challenged over and over again by noble Lords opposite as to the ambiguity contained in the Agreement. I was told that it was not in the least clear whether the "Ulster month" was to run from the date of the passing of this Bill or the date of the subsequent Act. I was told by Lord Carson and Lord Londonderry that if there is uncertainty they would take the opportunity of making their position clear by passing a Resolution contracting out after this Bill becomes an Act. It might be a perfectly useless operation, but at any rate they would secure the opportunity of doing it, and then, if necessary, they would be able to raise the same Resolution again after the subsequent Bill had become an Act.
On behalf of His Majesty's Government I pointed out that I here was no necessity for action of that kind, because, first of all, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, fortified by the opinion to which the noble and learned Viscount has already referred, the matter was quite clear, and the "Ulster month," the "zero point," as it has been called, was to start from the second Act and not from the first. I also stated that the matter was all the more satisfactory because the Government of Southern Ireland had definitely said that, though they took another view upon the construction, they agreed to accept the position and interpretation of His Majesty's Government. Both parties having agreed, it was not necessary to go any further. This suggestion was laughed to scorn by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson. Lord Carson said: "What is the use of an agreement of that kind? Ought it not to be put in the Statute? What is the use of suggesting that the Irish Government have agreed to it? Why, there may be another Irish Government, or another ten Irish Governments, in the next two months. Will they be bound by the settlement?"
This was argued with great force, not only by the noble and learned Lord but by other members of your Lordships' House. I felt the force of that point, and after negotiation and discussion, it was agreed that the matter should be made clear. I accordingly put down this Amendment for that purpose, for I was very anxious that Ulster should have no complaint to make on that point. As soon as that; Amendment was put down in an endeavour to clear up the ambiguity, it was denounced by the noble and learned Lord as a new

871
insult to Ulster. He argued as if it were almost a monstrous act to try to settle this ambiguity and to meet the complaints which I was trying to assuage. I do not often suggest that noble Lords treat the Government with unreasonableness, but I think I am justified at least in objecting to their conduct on this particular occasion.
Let me refer to one or two further points. Noble Lords have said that Ulster ought to be able to contract out at once. But I pointed out, and I point out again, that, under Article 12, you would fall into the most tremendous difficulties if you enacted now that Ulster was to contract out after this Bill became an Act. If you read Article 12, you will see that the contracting out presupposes the setting up of the new Constitution, and therefore it could be, and no doubt would be, contended with some force that this arrangement meant nothing, because Ulster could not contract out of an arrangement which had not been made. When noble Lords ask, as they have done, "Why cannot Ulster contract out at once?" the answer is that you cannot contract out of a contract that has not been made. It is a contradiction in terms, an impossibility, and the interpretation of this Treaty would be laid open, not only to one ambiguity, but to a whole series of ambiguities if such a new arrangement were to be made. It is perfectly clear that the whole of this Treaty goes on the assumption that it is the second Bill, the Bill settling the Irish Constitution, from which the "Ulster month" dates. I beg your Lordships, at this very late period in the Bill, not to go right back on the arrangement into which you solemnly entered after long debate and not to upset the whole Treaty at the last moment by interposing this Amendment.
May I be allowed to say one word regarding what has been said by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, on the matter of conciliation I think I said myself on the Second Reading, and it was also stated many times by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that the Government still hoped that this matter of the boundaries might be settled by amicable arrangement before the matter was adjudicated upon by the Chairman of the Commission, so that the Commission might then act less as arbitrators than as men who were settling an arrangement already entered upon. That has been said again and again. The noble Marquess has made
872
a further suggestion with regard to conciliation. The Government hope, and hope intensely, that an arrangement may be reached long before the Boundary Commission is set up, and I can only say that the particular suggestion which the noble Marquess has made will be considered by the Government with the utmost interest and sympathy. I hope this Amendment will not be carried because it will upset the whole Agreement.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I should like to say a few words, since the noble Viscount has so hotly attacked me over this matter. I entirely dispute the account he has given of this transaction, though of course he means to give it accurately from his point of view. We never had any doubt as to what this Treaty meant. No lawyer I have met ever had a doubt. The Government expressed, for some reason, the view that the Treaty did not mean what it said—namely, that within a month after the ratification of the Treaty Ulster was free to contract out. They said it meant some other time and some other Bill, though nowhere in the Treaty can you find any mention either of the other time or of the other Bill. The matter seemed to us to be quite simple. In order that we might meet the suggestion made by His Majesty's Government that there was another construction that might be put upon the Bill, we asked to have it made perfectly clear upon the face of the Bill. The Government refused to do that on a vote of this House. The vote of the House was, I think, a vote that the Treaty should not be altered, and it is most remarkable to consider the heat with which the noble Viscount argues that this Treaty should be altered, when for weeks it has been urged both in the House of Commons and in this House that the Treaty was sacrosanct, and that no one on earth could alter it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is by agreement.
LORD CARSON: I will take agreement in a moment. I do not think the noble Viscount has much to rely upon in that. You are asking the House to declare that the conclusion it then reached was not accurate. All you did was to throw out the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, to the effect that this Bill was a ratification. The only effect of that was to leave the Bill as it is, and the whole of it might have been left in that way if the

873
Government, had not come down at this last moment, when we are asked to conclude all the stages of the Bill, and re-opened the whole question by putting this Amendment upon the Paper.
I have heard no answer up to the present to what I stated when I said that the Amendment was really ludicrous. What does it say It says that a Bill that regularises the Treaty does not ratify it. Notwithstanding our saying that this Treaty is an Act of Parliament, and is to have the force of an Act of Parliament, it is still not to be considered to be ratified. I do not, think that such a ridiculous suggestion has ever been put forward with reference to any Act of Parliament. Legalise it; make it an Act of Parliament set up Governments under it—but it is not ratified ! Such is the position, and I suggest to your Lordships that it makes the whole matter ridiculous.
You are not asked to leave the sacrosanct Treaty as it is. "Oh," but the noble Viscount says, "we have got an Agreement from Michael Collins to change it." Ulster, of course, is never asked as to whether she is willing to change it, and if she does suggest, changing it she is never listened to. What is the Agreement? The Provisional Government who signed this take the same view that has been put forward by Ulster. One of the most extraordinary things to my mind is that upon the very rare occasions on which you find Irishmen agreeing Englishmen at once come in and say: "The one thing we will not do is to carry out what Irishmen have agreed." Here you have Mr. Griffith, here you have the South of Ireland represented by Lord Midleton, and although of course I am not a North of Ireland Peer I can speak on behalf of Ulster, and I can tell you we all take the same view as is taken by the lawyers. Yet you say: "All of you being agreed, we Englishmen tell you that you have no right to be agreed, and we will see that what you are agreed about will he by Act of Parliament determined to be something else."
Really, the absurdity of it is very difficult to describe. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, and. I think, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack seem to think that the only question involved in this is the question of the boundary. No doubt the boundary is a very vital point, but it is not the only question. Every day
874
you leave Ulster within the Free State, in which you are determined to put her, judging from the way you drafted this Treaty, which was entered into behind her back, you add to the irritation that exists there. It reminds the people of Ulster every day of the way in which you have deceived them, of the way in which, behind their backs, you have broken all your pledges and have gone back upon the Act of 1920. I should have thought that one of the most important things was that Ulster should be allowed to contract out at the earliest possible moment.
To my mind the meaning of the Treaty is made perfectly clear if you look at Article 15, for that contemplates that immediately after this Treaty was entered into, without waiting even for a month, the North and the South were to proceed to try to settle this question, and to see whether it would be necessary for Ulster to vote herself out at all. Now we are told: "No, you must wait for the whole of that period, until a Provisional Government has been set up, until there have been Elections in the South and West, and until the new Constitution has been brought forward, sonic time next autumn, in this Parliament and also in the Parliament of the South of Ireland. Then will be time enough to raise the whole of this question." I think it is madness to take that course, and I hope you will agree to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, memories may well be defective, and mine may have failed, but I am bound to say that my, recollection of what has occurred is in agreement with that of the noble Viscount who has charge of this Bill. I will tell your Lordships exactly how the matter comes before my mind. That there was ambiguity in the terms of the Treaty was, I think, plain to everyone, and certainly I took the view that the month provided for by the Treaty ran from the passage of the present Bill, and I, together with other speakers, begged the noble Viscount to make this matter plain. The Amendment that was before your Lordships was an Amendment moved by Lord Sumner, who proposed to introduce words into Clause 1 of the Bill that would automatically make the passage of this Bill the ratification referred to in Article 11. It was upon that, after a discussion as to ambiguity, that the noble Viscount said that he appreciated that possibly it was

875
thought there was ambiguity, and he said he would make the matter plain by moving, upon the Report Stage, an Amendment which I understand was in the exact form of that now before the House. It is therefore not that the noble Viscount has done anything contrary to what transpired before—he has really done exactly what he said he would do—but that what he said he would do is unfortunately at variance with the wishes of a great number, and possibly of the whole, of the representatives of Ireland.
With regard to the Agreement, I urged strongly upon the noble Viscount that as Mr. Griffith and Mr. Collins regarded the Treaty as meaning what I thought it meant, and what Lord Sumner's Amendment would have made it mean, the wiser course was to leave it there, as everyone was in agreement. But the noble Viscount pointed out that a letter had been written, which, although upon its face it did not bear exactly the interpretation which he put upon it, was nevertheless evidence of some understanding to make this definite the other way. Upon that the Division was taken, and therefore, rightly or wrongly, the Division which your Lordships took was upon the very matter that is now before you. Although I felt strongly persuaded by the terms of the Treaty, and by the argument used here, that it ought to be a month from the passage of this Bill, yet I voted with the Government because I felt that there might be influences which were determining them in the course of action that they were proposing to take, which it would be unwise for a person like myself, who could have no knowledge of those circumstances, to oppose, and that if the Government, haying the responsibility for the whole measure upon their shoulders, said they felt that that responsibility would be most adequately discharged by this form of Amendment, even although it was against what the actual words of the Treaty had provided, I felt compelled to vote for them. For that reason I feel compelled to vote with them now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that there was ambiguity is beyond the slightest controversy. That that ambiguity was expressed by lawyers of the highest position is beyond controversy, and it was because and only because ambiguity was felt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, than whom none is more
876
competent to judge of these matters, put down an Amendment which would have made it plain that the critical month was to run from the passing of this Bill. Why did Lord Sumner do that? He did it for one reason only, and that was that to his mind there was some ambiguity. Therefore, only yesterday the House addressed itself to a decision upon the merits, on a discussion invited by the high authority of Lord Sumner. The whole discussion on the merits has however been repeated to-day, and by a most unusual process in a far thinner House, we are invited on the very day after a clear decision was reached in Committee, to reconsider the whole matter.
The plain truth is—and it can be dismissed in a sentence—that it was because there was ambiguity that the Amendment was moved by Lord Sumner, and that the whole case on the merits was discussed and decided yesterday. The Amendment now proposed by the noble Earl is an attempt, unprecedented in my short experience of this House, to reconsider to-day a matter which was discussed on the merits and dismissed yesterday. I can only say that, if that course is taken, I cannot assign a limit to the resulting confusion.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with, for the purpose of taking the Third Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I had hoped that we should have the Third Reading this evening, but, having regard to the important Amendment which was put down last night by the noble Viscount, and which we only saw to-day, and which has now been inserted in this Bill, I hope your Lordships will not go on with the Third Reading to-night. It is necessary to consider the very grave results that this Amendment will have in Ulster, and it may be necessary for me, in consultation with those who have confidence in me, to try to see whether I cannot put forward on Third

877
Reading some Amendment that may mitigate the evils which are at least anticipated, and which we have a right to anticipate may occur, by reason of the course that has been taken at the last moment by the Government in putting in an Amendment contrary to the provisions of the Treaty itself.
I, at all events, was perfectly clear upon the occasion referred to a moment ago by the Lord Chancellor that I preferred to take the view that Mr. Griffith took on the first occasion as to the meaning, and to leave it there. When the noble Viscount brought this forward I said:
"Thank you for nothing. We prefer to leave it as Mr. Griffith understood it to be, and as we understand it to be, and as is, to my mind at all events, the plain reading of the clause."
Therefore I have not in any wise contributed to the course which has been taken by the Government, and I hope your Lordships will not insist upon taking the Third Reading to-night. At an hour like this, to proceed to read a third time one of the most important. Bills that has ever been brought before this House—a measure that upsets the whole policy pursued by a great Party in this country during the last thirty-live years, a measure that upsets the Union between Great Britain and Ireland—and to dispose of it hurriedly, with a view to getting away to dinner, would be treating a great subject of this kind in a, way not worthy of your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there is no question whatever that the Amendment inserted in the Bill this evening is one of very great importance. I confess that I felt the force of the reasoning of the noble Viscount opposite and of my noble friend, Lord Buckmaster, when they said that it was a very strong thing to reverse the next day a decision come to in Committee. It is only in very exceptional circumstances that I should be in favour of it, and, so far as my little influence extended, I used it to prevent a Division. But I think that that gives me some little claim to urge upon the Government the necessity of not parting with the Bill filially this evening. The attitude of the Government on this important Amendment has been so remarkable that one cannot help thinking there must be something behind, which we do not know—nothing at all derogatory to the Government, but some point of which we are not aware.
878
And I think it is important that we should have the opportunity of hearing unofficially what it is which makes them so anxious that this decision of the boundary question should he put off for three or four months.
If your Lordships part with the Bill to-night, there will be no opportunity of making any modification, and that is a very strong reason why the Government should not take the Third Reading now. I do not think anything would be lost. I understand that the Government cannot take your Lordships' Amendments immediately in another place, so there will be no time lost. Of course, there must be communications passing between the Government and the Provisional Government in Ireland in the interval, which will possibly deal with this question among others. Further, my noble and learned friend has really a right to be heard on this question. It is the subject in which he has been interested during all his great political life, and if he asks your Lordships to postpone the Third Reading for a day or two in order that these negotiations may have some, chance of leading to some result, I do not think it would be consonant with your Lordships' general practice to refuse his plea.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Marquess should put it on the ground of refusing a plea advanced by Lord Carson. The House has been apprised of the desire of the Government to get all the stages of this Bill during the present week. Until this very moment I have not heard a word of protest against that policy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Amendment of the Government did not appear on the Paper until this morning.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will come to that. Up till this morning there has been no word of protest against the general programme which the Government have asked your Lordships to accept. Notice, in fact, was given that we were most desirous of finishing the Bill to-night in order to send it to the House of Commons. But this Amendment is not actually sprung upon the House. It was discussed on the first day of our debates. Notice, in effect, was given by Lord Peel that this Amendment would be moved. It takes the only form consistent with the statement he then made, and if Lord Carson, or Lord

879
Buckmaster, or any distinguished legal Peer had been invited to draft that Amendment, it would have followed probably the identical lines which are now laid down by the Parliamentary draftsman. So that notice has been given of this.
Lord Carson says it is too late in the evening to begin the discussion on Third Reading. I do not think we need confuse two things. This Amendment does not pass out of the purview of Parliament because it is accepted by your Lordships. It has to be discussed in the House of Commons, and it certainly cannot be discussed there during the present week. I should have thought—I do not know whether Lord Carson thinks it suitable—that his Northern Irish friends would have a chance of discussing it during this week end and of making any representations they think fit to make to the Government in the House of Commons. I do not say that in any polemical spirit.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government will not lose anything by postponing it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Until Tuesday?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Because, I understand, the Government cannot take it in the House of Commons on Tuesday.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am not sure about that. I am still hopeful and it is possible, though, as the noble Marquess says, it may have to be postponed. Although I am often taken to task for invading your Lordships' rights, no Peer is more anxious than I am to prevent dislocation of business that stands in the name of unofficial Peers, and Tuesday is occupied, or ought to be occupied, by a very important debate on foreign affairs. As to Wednesday, I have given a pledge to the Lord Chairman that that day shall be allocated to the discussion of the problem of Peeresses in this House, and if I were to put it down as Second Order on Wednesday after Lord Buckmaster's Motion, say about half-past six or seven o'clock, I should be told that it was not fair that your Lordships should be called upon to discuss such an important matter at that time of the day.
LORD LAMINGTON: Why should not the House meet on Monday?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does the noble Lord mean for the Third Reading?
LORD LAMINGTON: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will ask your Lordships to meet on Monday, but it is very inconvenient to have to give such short notice of a Monday sitting.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, no.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Marquess says, "No, no."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg the noble Earl's pardon.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Marquess has had a very good holiday, and is very fresh. He would like to sit every day of the week like the House of Commons, and after dinner as well. But I assure him that at this time of the evening to give notice of an important debate like this for Monday will cause umbrage. If your Lordships want to take it on Monday I will give notice, but I think it is rather unnecessary in view of the fact that there is ample time for the Irish Peers to consider this matter. We have been assured time after time that there is no desire to wreck this Bill, and I should imagine that there is no desire to debate the Third Reading.
LORD LAMINGTON: Why should we not meet to-morrow?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is impossible at seven o'clock at night to give the House notice that it is to meet on the following day, when I daresay many Peers already have their engagement books full for to-morrow.
LORD CARSON: Let us meet on Monday.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is that the Motion be agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is the Motion?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The original Motion; no other Motion has been moved.
A NOBLE LORD: That Standing Orders be suspended.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Standing Order No. XXXIX suspended accordingly.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate until Monday. It would be impossible at this time to enter upon such an important discussion. I do not suppose that the Government intend—as would seem to be indicated by the noble Viscount—to treat the Third Reading of such a measure as this as a mere formal matter. There are many very serious questions to be gone into. I cannot understand why the noble Earl adopted a hostile attitude to meeting the wishes of those of us who have had a very irksome and very toilsome duty to discharge during the last two or three days, in addition to the other work we have, unfortunately, to do. But as he took up that attitude I shall now ask your Lordships to allow this debate to be adjourned until Monday and to permit me then to resume the debate.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned till Monday.—(Lord Carson.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, after what has transpired I cannot, help thinking that the Government must find it difficult to resist this Motion. The Motion that has just been put was put, I think, a little prematurely and at the moment when the House appeared to be coining to an agreement upon the further discussion of this matter on Monday. The noble Earl himself had suggested the day and had done it, I am quite certain, with an anxious desire to meet with the convenience of everybody.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I did not suggest it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: There was mention of a day, at any rate. I am very greatly impressed with the fact that everyone must recognise the urgency of getting this measure through. But nobody suggests that the difference between to-day and Monday is going to affect the ultimate passage of the Bill or delay it by a single
882
hour; nor can anybody say that a Bill of this kind, affecting, as it does, matters to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, has undoubtedly devoted the whole of his political life, is one upon which your Lordships would desire either to curtail or exclude him from ex pressing the views he wishes to express and which, undoubtedly, he could do much more effectively on Monday than now. I feel very strongly that if the noble and learned Lord presses this Motion for the adjournment—though I trust it will be unnecessary—and it goes to a Division, I shall be compelled to vote with him, because it appears to me to be a reasonable proposal.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I confess that I am very much surprised by the attitude taken up by Lord Carson. He is proposing a direct negative to the Motion which was unanimously passed by your Lordships three minutes ago.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No. We are moving the adjournment of the debate.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I assure your Lordships that my noble friend five minutes ago moved that the Standing Order be suspended in order that the Third Reading should be taken now, according to the Notice which I offered to your Lordships several days ago. That Motion was unanimously accepted by your Lordships, having been put in a most deliberate manner to you by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. The moment that Motion was moved, the purpose of which was to enable the Third Reading to be taken, Lord Carson moves that the debate be adjourned. That is, in effect, a, direct negative to the Motion your Lordships accepted five minutes ago. I know that conversations on procedure and as to when Bills should be taken occupy as long a time as the discussion of the Bills themselves, and if we are to have a fresh debate upon procedure, of course we shall lose a great deal of the time that otherwise would have been devoted to Third Reading. I am not inclined to resist, but I want to say one thing to your Lordships, and I put it very earnestly to you indeed. Lord Carson talked about his toilsome and irksome work as the reason for putting this Bill off for two or three days. There are others besides Lord Carson who have irksome and toilsome work.
LORD CARSON: I did not say there were not others.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And it is only on Fridays and Saturdays, and on Sundays and Mondays, that Peers who are also Ministers really find time to do their Departmental work. I see your Lordships do not want the debate this evening. I think it is putting us in some difficulty, but it is no good discussing procedure if your Lordships do not care to discuss the Bill. I am, accordingly, compelled to agree that the debate be adjourned till Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion to adjourn the debate till Monday agreed to.

BRITISH LOANS TO GREECE.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had given Notice to move, That His Majesty's Government take any steps that are necessary to prevent a loan in any form being raised in this country on behalf of Greece, so long as that country continues to be at war with Turkey. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, owing to the long debates on the Irish Bill, had to be postponed till to-day, and since I put it down events have considerably changed in respect of the subject-matter of it. I think that events, on the whole, are so changed that it ought to be more easy for the Government to accept the Motion. In to-day's newspapers it is stated the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, has made a proposal for an armistice as between Greece and Turkey for three months, and that his colleagues at the Conference have unanimously accepted that proposal. A telegram has been, or will be, sent to Athens, Constantinople, and Angora suggesting that an armistice be made for a period of three months from a certain fixed date. It is very satisfactory to find that in these questions we are acting in concert, particularly with the other member of the Entente, France.
In The Times to-day there is a long statement on the question of the Near East. It is pointed out in that statement that a great deal of uncertainty has arisen in the minds of the French owing to a belief that we have secret commitments with Greece. The Times correspondent points
884
out that to secure absolute co-operation and co-ordination with France it is essential that this suspicion should be dispelled. I therefore hope that the cablegrams sent to the places I have mentioned mean that we are acting in hearty accord with France on this question.
In regard to the history of this matter, I may say that after the death of King Alexander, when M. Venizelos was dismissed from office and King Constantine was again placed on the throne of Greece, there was then an opportunity for this country to have cleared up the whole situation in the Near East. That opportunity, very lamentably, was not taken advantage of. We then propounded two points of policy. One was that we should observe absolute neutrality between Greece and Turkey when hostilities broke out, and also, owing to the dismissal of M. Venizelos, who had been acting as a very faithful ally during the great war, that we should establish a financial blockade as against Greece. What one wants to know is why was that blockade ever withdrawn. When I raised this Question about a fortnight ago in your Lordships' House, the reply given by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, was to the effect that this Government never prevented any other country from obtaining loans in the City. At the same time he had to mention that there was no possibility of loans being obtained in the City unless adequate security could be given, and that was not possible in the case of Greece, because her security had already been pledged.
But the Government so far departed from an understanding arrived at with France and the United States that the securities which had been assigned to a loan made by the United States were released so that thereby Greece might be able to obtain money from the City. She made the attempt, but the City would not agree to make the loan. The noble Earl went on to recall that there was, under the Trade Facilities Act, an Advisory Committee set up to which other countries could apply for monetary assistance, on the understanding that the money so obtained should he entirely spent in this country. Personally, I thought that a most futile policy. The idea was that this money would be spent to relieve unemployment here, but as Greece was practically bankrupt it was in her case a perfectly delusive security, and we were

885
simply lending money to ourselves. Greece, however, did apply to the Advisory Committee and she was refused. She applied a second time, and the application was, after a time, withdrawn. Lord Crawford went on to say that if she applied again no doubt the Advisory Committee would consider the application on its merits, and that the loan of £15,000,000 might be granted.
About three weds ago a reply was also given in another place that there was no application by Greece before that Advisory Committee; yet ten days ago I read in the Press that M. Gounaris, the Greek Prime Minister, at the National Assembly, discussing the whole financial position of the country, recalled the agreement of December, 1921, with the British Government, by which the latter consented to the issue of a Greek loan for £15,010,000, which was to be used chiefly for purchases in the British market. Negotiations for this loan were so far advanced that nothing was required but its acceptance by the International Commission of Revenue Control, who would be responsible for the administration of the loan, and the consent of the American Government. I do not know which is the accurate report.
It was stated here that there was no application about a fortnight or three weeks ago; yet M. Gounaris, ten days afterwards, says that they are on the point of getting the loan. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to throw some light on these contradictory statements. I see he shakes his head; I am very sorry, because one does not know what to believe. My point is that the Government have not been unwilling to provide funds for Greece, notwithstanding the statement that we intended to preserve absolute neutrality between Greece and Turkey. It is obvious that although this money must be spent in this country, you cannot limit the effect of the operation of a money grant, and Greece would certainly derive fresh sinews for war against Turkey from it, no matter on what the money was spent. We should, therefore, be departing from our declaration of strict neutrality.
In 1918 a loan was made by ourselves, the United States and France, providing Greece with £10,000,000. France did not act on the undertaking, but the United States provided about £6,000,000 and this country £4,000,000, on the understanding
886
that the securities would not, in any way, be touched until the advances had been repaid by Greece. Our Government gave way on the point, and released the securities in order to provide Greece with the means of obtaining a further loan, but to this day the United States has never raised her embargo, and we, therefore, cannot furnish funds to Greece because the United States will not allow it. I believe France takes the same view, although I do not quite know how she stands in the matter.
I do not think it is fair to Greece to treat her in this way. You are dilly-dallying with her, and all the time you know that it is perfectly impossible to provide her with money. Mr. Montagu, in the statement he made after his resignation, said—
"I have never been able to understand from what motive his"—(the Prime Minister's)—"pro-Greek policy was dictated. Pro-Greek it is called. I do not believe it is in the interest of the Greeks. I do not know in whose interests it is. I am certain it is calamitous to the British Empire."
I quite agree with him in that statement. I cannot conceive why you should pretend to help Greece when you know you cannot do it. But what is still more serious is that by this pretence of affording financial aid you incur the resentment and animosity of Moslems throughout the world. I know from very good authority that they are very sore on this point. All the time we have been pretending to observe strict neutrality between Greece and Turkey we have been negotiating, quite unfruitfully, to provide Greece with funds, and it has rankled in the minds of Moslems and created a dangerous feeling against us.
I am not influenced by any hostility to Greece. I do not want to prevent her getting funds when she has made peace with Turkey. I should be willing for her to have £15,000,000 if she would clear out of Asia Minor, but do not let us go on, for some mysterious reason, allowing her to believe that we are going to help her when all the time we cannot do it. My main point is that in assuming this attitude we have created a dangerous feeling against us amongst our Mahomedan fellow subjects, and I hope that His Majesty's Government, having in accord with France and Italy tried to get an armistice between Greece and Turkey, will agree to the Motion I have placed on the Paper.
Moved, That His Majesty's Government take any steps that are necessary to prevent a loan in any form being raised in this country on behalf of Greece, so long as that country continues to be at war with Turkey.—(Lord Lamington.)
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I understand that about a fortnight ago the noble Lord raised this Question in this House and that as full a reply as was possible was given by the noble Earl who acts as Deputy Leader of the House. This evening I am able only to attempt to clear up, on behalf of the Treasury, a slight misconception that appears to have arisen in his mind as to the "steps that are necessary to prevent a loan in any form being raised in this country on behalf of Greece so long as she continues to be at war with Turkey." The facts of the case are these. Your Lordships are probably cognisant of the fact that there is no Government control over capital issues on the London market, and His Majesty's Government have repeatedly declared it to be their policy to let trade and finance manage their own affairs. There is no power, since the death of the late lamented D.O.R.A., to impose control without obtaining special legislation. Therefore, the Government cannot take steps, in general terms, to prevent a loan to Greece. The matter is one for the judgment of the London market.
At the same time, it is only right I should admit that in the case of Greece there was the special point that the consent of His Majesty's Government was required for the assignment of securities for a foreign loan by the Greek Government, while the war advance to Greece by this country and its Allies remained unpaid. But on December 21 last—and this is no new information given to Parliament, because a statement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place some time back which can hardly have escaped the noble Lord's attention—an Agreement was signed in Paris by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and by the Prime Minister of Greece on behalf of the Government of the Hellenes, whereby His Majesty's Government granted its consent to the assignment of securities for the loan which the Greek Government were then seeking to negotiate, up to a total of £15,000,000.
His Majesty's Government, clearly, cannot repudiate that Agreement, and, there-
888
fore, I must confess that I cannot understand how His Majesty's Government are to take the steps the noble Lord suggests. The Agreement was signed on December 21 last, giving these powers to the Greek Government to the total of £15,000,000. My noble friend will, of course, be in order in moving a vote of censure on His Majesty's Government for having signed that Agreement, but I do not know what steps could be taken now to prevent what His Majesty's Government have already sanctioned so far back as December 21 last. My noble friend refers to a statement made by M. Gounaris in the Greek Parliament. It is impossible for me or any other member of His Majesty's Government to hold himself responsible for or to explain any statement made by M. Gounaris, or any other Greek Minister.
LORD LAMINGTON: It was a direct contradiction of what was said here.
LORD HYLTON: What M. Gounaris said is a matter for which M. Gounaris must be responsible, and not His Majesty's Government. As regards the Trade Facilities Act to which my noble friend referred, I am informed that the application for the guarantee of a loan has been withdrawn, so that no question arises on that score. My noble friend alluded to the announcement in the newspapers that suggestions have been made for the signature of an armistice between Greece and Turkey. I have no doubt that at the proper time information will be afforded by His Majesty's Government on that point. But this evening I am merely endeavouring, on behalf of the Treasury, to explain the facts respecting the Agreement signed between His Majesty's Government and the Greek Government, and I am afraid that is all the information I can give my noble friend.
LORD LAMINGTON: I thank my noble friend for his very official answer, but it does not meet my point in the slightest degree. How would you be breaking faith with Greece You broke faith with the American Government in 1918, when money was advanced to Greece by America, ourselves and France, who later withdrew from the arrangement. It was advanced on the undertaking that securities should not be assigned away. We have now told Greece that they can borrow more money. The whole of the noble Lord's answer was strictly official, and it does not meet my

889
point. By behaving in this way you have created an extreme feeling in the Mahomedan world that you have broken faith. And for what? Not for the Greeks. Indeed, nobody knows why. I have quoted Mr. Montagu, who ought to know why it was done. The effect of it, at any rate, has been to create very hostile feeling towards our country as one which cannot
Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
be trusted to keep its word. I feel very strongly on this point, and I am afraid I must put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division.
On Question, whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queenoberry.)

Bellew, L.

Mowbray, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Morton, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

Raglan, L.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sutherland, D.

Onslow, E.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Ancaster, E.

Strafford, E.

Rotherham, L.

Bradford, E. [Teller.]

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L.

Lucan, E.

Hylton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock till Monday next, a quarter past four o'clock.

CROFTS' DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved that the Bill be now read 2ª; agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
MORTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Petition of Robert Morton, Junior, praying that the attendance of Harriet Shepard and Elizabeth Rawlings of Lymington, Southampton, on the Second Reading of the Bill be dispensed with, and that the evidence taken on oath before William Lowry, Barrister-at-Law, at Lymington, on 3rd February, 1922, be received in evidence on the Second Reading of the Bill considered (according to order): No order made: Witnesses examined: Moved, that the Bill be now read 2ª; agreed to: Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and referred to the Examiners.
STRETFORD AND DISTRICT GAS BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that Lord Roundway be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Stamford; read, and agreed to.
NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
BOLTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK (CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]

    CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    TRAFFORD PARK BILL. [H.L.]
    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.)
    Report from the Committee of Selection that Lord Abinger be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of Lord Trevor; read, and agreed to.
    [From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, March 24.]

BARON FERMOY.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor, that the right of the Baron Fermoy to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.