Sitting of 29 March 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Leeds and Bradford Extension) Bill,
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

PARIS CONFERENCE, 1922.
Address for Report of Conference of Ministers of the Allied Powers held at Paris on the Near Eastern problem, from the 22nd day of March to the 27th day of March, 1922.—[Sir Donald Maclean.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  GENOA CONFERENCE.
    VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.

      MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S STATEMENT.
      Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether the questions of the reduction of armaments or of the payment of reparation by Germany or of Allied debts are to be considered at Genoa; and whether any Papers dealing with the proceedings at Genoa will be laid upon the Table before the proposed Debate on the subject?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The Resolution on which we propose to take the opinion of the House on Monday will be moved by the Prime Minister, and will be in the following terms:—
      "That this House approves the Resolutions passed by the Supreme Council at
      1300
      Cannes, as the basis of the Genoa Conference, and will support His Majesty's Government in endeavouring to give effect to them."
      The Cannes Resolutions of the Supreme Council, together with the Memorandum published by the Council explanatory of the objects of the Genoa meeting and of the subjects to be discussed there, are being presented as a Command Paper, copies of which are now available in the Vote Office. I cannot deal adequately with the scope of the Conference within the limits of a reply at Question time, and I trust that my Noble Friend will consent to leave this matter to be dealt with by the Prime Minister in opening the Debate on Monday next.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could the right hon. Gentleman let us have copies of that Resolution now?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Resolution, will appear on the Paper to-morrow, but I will send a copy at once to my hon. and gallant Friend.
      Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that the question of reparation has been definitely excluded from the programme of the Genoa Conference by international agreement?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think my Noble Friend can have heard what I said. In the concluding part of my answer I said that I cannot deal adequately with the scope of the Conference within the limits of a reply to a question, and I trust my Noble Friend, as well as my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R Cecil), will consent to leave this matter to be dealt with by the Prime Minister in opening the Debate on Monday.
      Lord R. CECIL: Do we understand that the scope of the Conference at Genoa will be confined to the Resolutions at Cannes?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must adhere to my answer. I mean no discourtesy to the House, but it is not possible for me to deal suitably or fairly with the scope of the Resolution in the limits of a reply to a question.
      Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving two days for the Debate instead of one?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I have considered that, but, in the state of public business, I cannot allot two days.
      Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman let the House and the country, before Monday, have the conditions under which this country will agree to recognise the murderous maniacs of Moscow?
      Lord E. PERCYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Press section will be attached to the British Delegation to the Genoa Conference; and, if so, who will be in charge of that section?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer is in the negative. Publicity is a matter for the Conference itself, and will presumably be carried out through the Secretariat-General on which the British Delegation will be represented.
      Lord E. PERCYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason His Majesty's Government have, abstained from official communication with the Soviet Government at Moscow in regard to the Genoa Conference?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: There has been no occasion for His Majesty's Government to communicate with the Soviet Government on the subject of the Genoa Conference It is the Italian Government which issued the invitation to foreign Governments and has communicated with them about the Conference.
      Lord E. PERCY: Is it of no interest to His Majesty's Government to know what views on the part of the Soviet Government they may have to meet when they arrive at Genoa?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir; I do not say that at all.
      Lord E. PERCYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Lord President of the Council or His Majesty's Ambassador at Washing ton were consulted with regard to the project of the Genoa Conference before the Supreme Council meeting of 6th January last; if so, on what date; and on what date the decision of the Supreme Council at that meeting was communicated to His Majesty's embassy at Washington?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part therefore does not arise. The Supreme Council's decision of 6th January was immediately published, and presumably reached His Majesty's Ambassador the next day.
      Lord E. PERCY: Are we to understand that the Government took no steps whatever to sound the United States Government before arriving at this decision, and did not have even the courtesy to inform the Lord President of the Council, or the British Ambassador at Washington, or the United States Government that an invitation was being given?
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Do we understand that the United States Government saw this for the first time in the public Press?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not sure. I would like notice of the question.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister how many persons from the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, Treasury, Prime Minister's secretariat, and Cabinet offices are accompanying him to Genoa; whether Lord Riddell is an official member of the British Delegation to Genoa; if so, what are his duties; whether any special police protection is being sent over from this country in case of disturbances between the local Fascisti and Communisti in the neighbourhood of the residences of the British delegates; and whether the strike in Genoa is expected to be over before the Conference?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As at present arranged, the numbers of the staff referred to in the question will be as follow:—
      Foreign Office, 20; Board of Trade, 23; Treasury, 15; Prime Minister's secretariat, 8; Cabinet offices, 25.
      There may, however, be slight variations in these numbers.
      Lord Riddell is not an official member of the British Delegation.
      No special police protection is being sent from this country, the maintenance of public order in Genoa being entirely a matter for the Italian Government.
      As regards the last part of the question, it is understood that the Italian

      1303
      Government are mediating in the dispute, and that there is every prospect of a settlement being reached before the meeting of the Genoa Conference.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister why, when the British Foreign Secretary is still in Paris, the Italian Minister paid a visit to this country; what were the objects of this visit; and which British Ministers received him in this country?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Signor Schanzer asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister as head of the British Delegation to the Genoa Conference to discuss certain matters of procedure at the Conference on behalf of Signor Facta, the Prime Minister of Italy, and was received for that purpose by my right hon. Friend.

      FOREIGN OFFICE (NEWS DEPARTMENT).
      Mr. HURDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the general character of the subjects covered by the three wireless messages scattered over the globe daily by the News Department of the Foreign Office; whether their official source is clearly indicated in the messages; and whether copies of each day's messages will be filed in the Library of this House so that Members may know what the Foreign Office is saying to foreign nations on behalf of the British people?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: The messages deal with questions and events both domestic and foreign, which are of national importance and of international interest. Their official source is clearly indicated in the messages. The suggestion contained in the last part of my hon. Friend's question would be very troublesome to carry out. The files are open to the inspection of any hon. Member who calls at the Foreign Office to see them.
      Mr. HURD: Is it any special information that is given by the Foreign Office, information obtainable only at the Foreign Office, or is it ordinary matter like that taken from the tapes?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: In part, yes, but generally speaking it is such information as is taken from ordinary sources.
      Mr. HURD: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to put one day's issue in the Library?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, I shall be very happy to do that.

      KOREA.
      Mr. F. GREENasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Washington Conference on the reduction of armaments at any of its sittings had the case of Korea under discussion; whether any resolutions or decisions affecting Korea were arrived at; and whether His Majesty's Government will publish any Report of the proceedings and decisions of the Conference from which can be gathered the action taken by the British delegates on the Korean and other questions?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question of Korea was not discussed at the Conference. A collection of documents showing the work of the Conference will be in the hands of hon. Members very shortly.

      FRENCH ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
      Captain GEEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to leaflets being distributed in this country dealing with alleged outrages by black French troops upon German women and children; and if any representation has been made to the French Government with a view of finding if there is any justification for these allegations?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The leaflets are a form of German propaganda, and the allegations contained in them are quite unreliable. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Aldershot on 27th October last, to which I have nothing to add.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would not the best way of stopping these allegations be to get the French to withdraw the coloured troops altogether?
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Cannot the hon. Gentleman take steps through the Post Office to prevent the distribution of these leaflets?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will approach the Postmaster-General on that subject.

      ANATOLIA (RAILWAYS).
      Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what companies or what financiers control the Anatolian railways?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Anatolian railways are not at present under any company control. A small section of line from the Haidar-Pasha terminus is controlled by the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Railway Control at Constantinople, the remainder being in the possession of the Kemalists or Greeks.

    EGYPT.

      BRITISH PROTECTORATE (ABOLITION).
      Mr. SWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have formally notified the Powers of the abolition of the British protectorate over Egypt and that Egypt is now an independent sovereign State; and, if so, what is the actual text of this notification?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper respecting the status of Egypt (Command No. 1617).

      ZAGHLOUL PASHA.
      Mr. SWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Zaghloul Pasha was asked by Lord Milner in 1920 whether he would accept the Premiership of Egypt; and, if so, what was Zaghloul Pasha's reply?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no knowledge of any such offer having been made.
      Mr. SWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a large number of Egyptians were interned during the War on the ground of their being Turcophile; and whether Zaghloul Pasha was among them?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: During the War a number of Egyptians were interned as their political activities constituted a danger to the Allied cause. Zaghloul Pasha was not among them.
      Mr. SWAN: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that Zaghloul Pasha was never Turcophile? His term of office proved so. If the hon. Gentleman wants to verify that, there is his conversation with General Sir Reginald Wingate—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be giving information rather than seeking it.

    GREECE.

      REQUISITIONS, SALONIKA.
      Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether ho is aware that the Greek Government is confiscating merchandise at the port of Salonika, although the goods were destined for Belgrade, and were shipped for delivery via Salonika; whether the Greek authorities replied to a protest against the confiscation by stating that the requisition is carried out in accordance with home regulations, which are equally applied to Greek merchants and foreigners, and that he cannot seek more satisfactory treatment than their own (Greek) subjects; and, in view of this action of the Greek Government in preventing the despatch of merchandise from this country, what action does he intend to take in the matter?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government do not feel themselves in a position to protest against the requisitioning for military purposes by the Greek Government of goods in Greek territory, so long as adequate compensation is paid. Recent cases of requisitions at the Piraeus have been brought to the notice of the Greek Government, who have signified their intention of paying compensation within a reasonable period. No cases of requisition of British goods in transit through Salonika have been brought to my notice, but I am making inquiries. The transit of goods through Salonika to Jugo-Slavia is, I understand, governed by a special arrangement between Greece and Serbia, and I am also inquiring whether this arrangement would affect the right of Greece to requisition in time of war.
      Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman say what compensation will be paid? Do the Greeks decide?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: I suppose it is a matter for arbitration.
      Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: It is most important to know who is to arbitrate. If the Greeks arbitrate in regard to the things they have seized, is not the arrangement unsatisfactory?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: I suppose there is an ordinary prize court, but I will inquire.
      Lord E. PERCY: Is this the interpretation placed by the Greek Government on the desire of the Allies that Salonika should be a free port?

      LOAN.
      Mr. L. MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether proposals for a Greek loan are again to be put before the Trade Facilities Committee; and whether, directly or indirectly, His Majesty's Government intend to give any guarantee of financial assistance?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): No proposals for a Greek loan are now before the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee, and the remainder of the question does not, therefore, arise.
      Mr. MALONE: Is it a fact that the British Government have signed an agreement with the Greek Government releasing certain Greek revenues as security for a loan?
      Mr. YOUNG: The Government at some date in the course of last year—I am not sure of the date—agreed to the Greek Government assigning certain securities for a loan.
      Mr. MALONE: Did we stipulate that the money should not be used against the Turks?
      Sir J. D. REES: Will the Government be informed if any such application is made? Will they be kept posted?
      Mr. YOUNG: If the hon. Member refers to applications to the Trade Facilities Committee, yes; undoubtedly that would be brought to the attention of the Treasury.

      BRITISH SHIPPING DUES (PORTUGAL).
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Department has yet received any reply from the Portuguese Government as regards the increased charges made on British ships entering Portuguese ports; can he state the purport of the reply; and, if no reply has been received, will he press for a reply and try to stop these charges on British shipping?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply of the Portuguese Government is still awaited, and His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon will continue to press for it. Meanwhile, a Bill has been introduced into the Portuguese Chamber of Deputies for the purpose of exempting the Archipelago of Madeira from the effects of the recent legislation.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have we not recently given credit for £3,000,000 to the Portuguese Government, and could not that credit have been associated in some way with redress of this grievance?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would like to consider that suggestion.

    ROYAL NAVY.

      FLAG OFFICERS.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many flag officers there were on the Active List in March, 1914; how many there were in March of this year; and now many of these flag officers were employed in each of these two months, respectively?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): There were 95 flag officers on the Active List in March, 1914, of whom three were supernumerary, being employed and paid by overseas dominions or foreign governments. This number was increased during the War, but has been gradually reduced since, and now stands at 98, of whom six are supernumerary, three being officers specially promoted to Admiral of the Fleet for services during the War whose places on retirement will not be filled, and three being employed and paid by overseas dominions or foreign governments.

      1309
      As already announced, it was decided early this year to reduce this total number by 15. The number of flag officers employed in March, 1914, was 54. The number employed at the present time is 52, which, as already stated in reply to a previous question, will shortly be reduced to 41.
      Captain Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the making of a still further appeal to the senior ranks in the Navy to make room for junior officers.
      Mr. AMERY: The whole of that question is under consideration.

      WELFARE SCHEME.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now give the date when the first meeting of the representatives under the modified welfare machinery will be held?
      Mr. AMERY: The first meeting of the representatives under the modified welfare machinery will be held as soon as possible after 30th April, 1922.
      Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Are the women police included in this welfare scheme?

      OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).
      Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty under what particular rule, applicable to Schedule E, Income Tax is charged on lodging allowance of naval officers; and whether such lodging allowance is merely intended to meet an expense incurred in earning a particular salary, and therefore free of tax, as in the case of necessary expenses incurred by Members of Parliament?
      Mr. AMERY: The lodging allowance of naval officers is an emolument of office within the terms of Rule 1 of Schedule E to the Income Tax Act, 1918. It is not a payment to meet an expense incurred in earning a particular salary. As my hon. and gallant Friend will realise, if naval officers in receipt of lodging allowance were assessed on their emoluments, exclusive of the cost of lodging, an obvious inequality would be created, since most people in similar employment have inclusive salaries out of which the
      1310
      cost of lodging has to be met, and those salaries are fully assessed.
      Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Are not all taxpayers, whether Members of Parliament or naval officers, entitled to allowances necessary for the discharge of their duty? If that is so as regards other taxpayers, why should naval officers be excluded?
      Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. I thought my answer had made that point clear.

      DRIFTERS (DISPOSAL).
      Mr. KENNEDYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the drifter "Colonel," which the Admiralty purchased for £4,800, and reconditioned and repaired at a further cost of £2,997, was sold for £750 to a Boston company, who, in turn, found the vessel in such a damaged and unrepaired state that a further sum was spent on repairs prior to a sale at £900; and whether he will consider the desirability of disposing of such vessels as remain in the possession of the Admiralty at the earliest possible moment in order to avoid further expense?
      Mr. AMERY: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my remarks during the Debate on the Report of the Navy Excess Vote, 1920–21, on 24th March. With regard to the last part of the question, the Admiralty have always been fully alive to the desirability of disposing of all drifters in their hands at the earliest possible moment. Since the Armistice 268 drifters have been disposed of by sale in the open market or by transfer to the Fishery Boards for sale to ex-service fishermen. There now remain for sale only 10 drifters recently returned by the Fishery Boards, and one drifter newly released from naval service.

      NEW CONSTRUCTION.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what vessels of war and auxiliaries are at present under construction for His Majesty's Fleet; and what will have been their total cost when completed?
      Mr. AMERY: Thirty-two ships and vessels are at present under construction, details of which I will, with the hon. I and gallant Member's permission, circu-

      1311
      late in the OFFICIAL KEPORT. It IS estimated that their total cost when completed (including guns) will be about £20,500,000. This figure, of course, represents a programme which has been carried out over a considerable number of years.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we, in connection with the vessels still under construction, taking into account the Washington Agreement? Will that not make a difference?
      Mr. AMERY: None of these are capital ships. They are cruisers and other smaller craft, many of which have been under construction since 1917.
      The details promised are us follow:

      7 Light Cruisers.

      6 Torpedo Boat Destroyers.

      8 Submarines.

      6 Coastal Motor Boats.

      1 Minelayer.

      2 Flotilla Leaders.

      2 Aircraft Carriers.

      SUBSIDIES (ARMAMENT FIRMS).
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any subsidies are being paid to armament firms this year; if so, to what amount; for what purpose; to which firms; and how much money has been paid in this form of subsidy since the Armistice, giving the names of the firms receiving such moneys?
      Mr. AMERY: No moneys have been paid to armament firms in the form of subsidy since the Armistice.

      PONTOON, DEVONPORT.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that, some three months ago, an Admiralty vessel collided with the pontoon at North Corner, Devonport, putting the pontoon out of service; that the Admiralty have admitted liability, but so far nothing has been done to repair the damage; that the traffic is stopped at this point, causing great inconvenience to the public generally and disastrous consequence to the small shop keepers in Cornwall Street, where business is in a state of stagnation; and that many of these shopkeepers are now subsisting on their small savings and will
      1312
      have to close down unless something is speedily done; and will he say what the Admiralty propose to do in the matter of repair so as to restore the traffic and reopen trade?
      Mr. AMERY: It is the fact that a naval vessel collided with this pontoon a little over two months ago, though the Admiralty has not admitted liability. The responsibility for the resumption of traffic does not rest with the Admiralty, though the local naval authorities have endeavoured by the loan of a lighter to facilitate such resumption. The matter is under discussion between dockyard officers and the officers of the Plymouth corporation.

      SHORE MESSES (CANTEENS).
      Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the bars for the sale of malt liquors, which have been recently approved for the chief and petty officers' messes in shore establishments, will be under the direct management of the chief and petty officers concerned, in a similar manner to that of sergeants' messes of the Army and Royal Marines, or whether it is merely intended to transfer the present Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' beer canteens from the canteen buildings to the chief and petty officers' messes?
      Mr. AMERY: The matter is now under consideration.

      LEAVE (TRAVELLING ARRANGEMENTS).
      Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the withdrawal of the Government subsidy to the railway companies and the refusal of the Railway Clearing House to afford cheap travelling facilities to petty officers and men of the naval service, ratings proceeding on Easter leave will be permitted to make their own travelling arrangements and be allowed to proceed to the railway stations individually instead of being marched there in bodies as heretofore?
      Mr. AMERY: As the result of long experience, it has been found that when large numbers of men are proceeding on leave from the naval ports on the same day it is generally in the interest of the railway officials, the public and the men themselves, that some special arrange-

      1313
      ments should be made for getting the men to the railway stations. These arrangements are left to the discretion of the local senior naval officer. I may add that the railway companies have been asked whether they can arrange that men proceeding on Easter leave in special leave trains may be allowed tickets at the excursion fare rates as charged to the general public.

      DOCKYARDS (ESTABLISHED MEN).
      Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether established men from other dockyards who were sent to Rosyth, and who wore 50 years of age, were promised employment until they reached the age of 60; if not, will he state on what scale of bonus and pension will such men be paid; and whether they will be entitled to removal expenses to their late dockyard towns?
      The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, as no pensionable Government servant is guaranteed employment up to the age of 60. The scale of pension is laid down by the Superannuation Acts. Bonus on pension will be regulated by the recent Treasury Minute issued as a White Paper on the 24th March (No. 55). Removal expenses to other dockyard towns will not be paid.
      Mr. R. YOUNG: In the event of a man being discharged and returning to his home dockyard, if he has a son in Rosyth as an apprentice, will that son be transferred to the other dockyard?
      Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I must ask for notice of that question.

      BRITISH CONSULS (ALIENS).
      Mr. DOYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many men of German and alien birth have been appointed British Consuls and Vice-Consuls during the last 12 months; how many people of foreign extraction are employed in such offices abroad; and what is the number of ex-service men who have been found employment in them?
      Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): In the last 12 months 14 persons of foreign birth, of whom none is an ex-enemy, have been appointed to posts in the unsalaried Consular Service. As regards the conditions of appointment of foreigners and as regards subordinate staffs, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on the subject on 20th February.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.

      CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFIT.
      Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that doubt exists in the minds of some employers and aged workpeople as to the age at which State unemployment contributions cease to operate and unemployment benefits cease to be payable; and, if so, will he issue to those concerned definite instructions on this point?
      The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): There is no exemption from unemployment insurance contributions or disqualification from unemployment benefit merely on account of the advanced age of the worker, except that neither unemployment insurance contributions nor unemployment benefits are payable in respect of old age pensioners.

      MINERS, CORNWALL.
      Mr. FOOTasked the Minister of Labour the number of miners who are at present unemployed consequent upon the closing down of the Cornish mines?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of persons engaged in copper, tin, lead, etc. mining whose unemployment insurance books were lodged at Employment Exchanges and local offices in Cornwall on 20th March was 2,550.
      Sir J. D. REES: In the distribution of relief, who will take precedence—the Russian or the Cornish unemployed?

      SHARE FISHERMEN.
      Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Minister of Labour if the share fishermen who are not included in the national insurance scheme can be included in the scheme by an Order in Council; and, if this cannot be done expeditiously so as

      1315
      to help them in the exceedingly bad times they are passing through, will he take action in the matter?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Share fishermen at present excluded cannot without amending legislation be brought into the Unemployment Insurance Scheme in such a way as to become entitled to immediate benefit. The exclusion of shave fishermen was pressed upon me when the 1920 Act was before Parliament, and I am afraid I do not see my way to propose an amendment of the Act for the purpose of reversing the decision then taken.
      Sir A. FELL: If these men made a mistake some time ago, cannot it be rectified, and has the opinion of the Law Officers been taken as to whether that cannot be done by an Order in Council?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I think there is no doubt that an amendment of the law-would be necessary. I ought perhaps to say that endeavour has been made to find relief work.

      POPLAR.
      Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registered for the Borough of Poplar, South Division, for January and February of this year, giving the figures for males and females; and can he give the trades which the greatest number of unemployment applies to?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Separate figures are not available for the South Division of the Borough of Poplar. The numbers of persons lodging their unemployment books at the Poplar Employment Exchange on 31st January and 28th February last were: males,8,542 and 8,412; and females, 2,350 and 2,224, respectively. The trades in which the highest figures appear were transport, shipbuilding, engineering and building, for men; and food and tobacco, the tailoring trades and laundries for women.

      BENEFIT AND GRANTS (TOTAL PAYMENTS).
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Labour what has been the total amount paid by his Department for unemployment pay in the years 1920 and 1921, and what is the estimated amount for the first three months of this year?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The total amounts paid by way of out-of-work donation, unemployment benefit, and, since November last, dependants' grants have been, for the year 1920 £15,900,000 and for the year 1921 £62,500,000. The estimated amount of benefit and grants for the first three months of the present year is about £16,500,000. As my hon. Friend is aware, so far as unemployment benefit and dependants' grants are concerned, between three-fourths and four-fifths of the total payments are contributed by employers and employed in the insured trades.
      Sir W. de FRECEasked the Prime Minister if he will lay upon the Table of the House at the earliest possible date a detailed statement of the grants made by the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord St. Davids?
      Mr. YOUNG: I have been asked to reply. There are several thousands of these grants, and I do not think that the labour and expense involved in preparing and publishing a list would be justified. I should be glad to communicate to the hon. Member particulars of cases in which he is interested.

      RENT (ARREARS).
      Mr. L. MALONEasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in some areas where unemployment is very acute, unemployed persons are appearing in the small debt court almost daily owing to lack of funds to pay their rent; and whether he will consider the possibility of introducing a moratorium of debts in respect of rent incurred by unemployed workers?
      The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I have no information as to the first part of the question. Subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Increase of Kent Act, 1920, already gives the courts express power to stay or suspend proceedings on such conditions (if any) as they think fit.

      WATLING STREET IMPROVEMENT SCHEME.
      Mr. MILLS(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if his attention has been called to the state of affairs on the Watling Street scheme for the relief of the unemployed; whether he knows that Messrs. McAlpine are erecting huge mechanical excavators, each capable of

      1317
      doing the work of 200 unemployed men; and whether he considers that to be in keeping with the spirit of the House of Commons grant for the relief of the unemployed?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): Notice of this question has only reached me since I came into the House, and I have not been able to make the necessary inquiries. I will do so, and communicate with my hon. Friend.

      CATERING TRADE.
      Sir HERBERT CORYasked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to set up a trade board in the catering trade; and, if so, when?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that last Autumn I appointed a Committee, under the Chairmanship of Lord Cave, to inquire into the working and effects of the Trade Boards Acts, and to report what changes, if any, are desirable. I propose to re-examine the matter to which my hon. Friend refers in the light of the Committee's report, which will, I understand, be in my hands at an early date.

      WORKS COMMITTEES.
      Mr. W. TH0RNEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that many of the factories and workshops under the control of the employers of labour, who are parties of the various Whitley Joint Industrial Councils and the various labour co-partnerships, have joint committees of workers who have a voice in the internal management; and if he will take action in the matter?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware that a large number of works committees have been formed under schemes recommended to their respective industries by Joint Industrial Councils. The formation and scope of these committees are, of course, settled by agreement between the parties concerned.
      Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Engineering Employers' Federation were to accept this
      1318
      principle there would be no dispute in the engineering trade at the present time?
      Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that when the Whitley Councils were established this was intended?

      LOCHLEVEN LINEN COMPANY.
      Mr. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the failure of the Lochleven Linen Company to post the notices of the decisions of the Flax and Hemp, and Linen and Cotton Trades Boards in their works; and whether he is prepared to lake the necessary steps to have these notices posted by the firm in question in their works?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My attention has been called to the failure of the company in question to post notices and I am taking the appropriate action to deal with the matter.

      DUNFERMLINE POWERLOOM MANUFACTURERS.
      Mr. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the failure of the Dunfermline Powerloom Manufacturers to pay the rates fixed by the Linen and Cotton Trades Board; whether he is aware that the female workers employed by that association are paid at least 1d. per hour less than the minimum fixed; and whether he is prepared to take steps to have the decisions of the board carried out by the manufacturers in question?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The suggestions as to underpayment contained in my right hon. Friend's question appear to be in substantial accordance with the facts. The employers in question, however, contended that they were not affected by the determinations of the Linen and Cotton Handkerchief Trade Board. As I could not accept the interpretation put upon these determinations by the employers, I invited them to have the question settled by means of an agreed test case in the Scottish Courts. I regret that this invitation has been refused. I propose now to take independent action to test the legal point at issue.

    HOUSING.

      GOVERNMENT PROGRAMME.
      Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have forwarded to the Ministry of Health resolutions calling upon the Government to show steadfastness in fulfilling the housing pledges given in 1919?
      Sir A. MOND: Resolutions, in a form circulated by a body with which I understand the hon. Member is connected, have been forwarded to me by 108 out of the 1,800 housing authorities in this country.
      Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman still of opinion that the need for housing is grossly exaggerated, notwithstanding these representations?
      Sir A. MOND: Of the 1,800 authorities, only 108 have thought it advisable or necessary to send me the circular which was sent to them to forward. I should think the others, the very large majority, evidently did not think it worth while to make any representations on the subject.
      Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be influenced if those who want houses petition him?
      Sir A. MOND: I am afraid the limit of houses was laid down by the Government some time ago.

      PLASTERERS.
      Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health how many plasterers were employed on the housing schemes of local authorities on 1st October and 1st March, respectively?
      Sir A. MOND: The number of plasterers employed on housing schemes of local authorities on the 1st October and 1st March last were 10,021 and 8,804 respectively. At the same time there was a considerable number of local authorities who reported a shortage of plasterers on the 1st March.
      Mr. THOMSON: As there are 2,000 less plasterers employed, will not the right hon. Gentleman expedite this housing work by employing these plasterers on new houses?
      Sir A. MOND: As a matter of fact, where there are plasterers available I am endeavouring to allot houses to the local authorities.

      ESTIMATED SHORTAGE.
      Mr. MYERSasked the Minister of Health if he will circularise the principal local authorities in the country with a view to ascertaining what is their estimated shortage of houses at the present time?
      Sir A. MOND: For reasons which will be seen by reference to my statement on the Vote on Account on the 13th instant, I do not think there would be any advantage in moving in this matter at the present time.

      MIDDLESBROUGH.
      Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Middlesbrough Housing Committee has received 3,952 applications for houses; that it has so far only supplied 597 dwellings in flats, huts, and houses; that it only has his sanction for a further 305 houses, all in course of erection, leaving 3,355 applicants without any chance of satisfaction; and, in view of the fact that this is also the experience of many other industrial towns, will he state what further steps he proposes to take to meet the demand of such industrial areas for houses in excess of those provided by his 168,000 houses?
      Sir A. MOND: I am aware of the housing provision which has already been made at Middlesbrough and of the amount of work at present in hand. Authority was given at the beginning of the month to the council obtaining lenders for an additional 30 houses, and in present circumstances I cannot see my way to increase this number. I may observe that, on the basis of the rents at present proposed to be charged, it is estimated that there will be a deficit on the Middlesbrough housing scheme of something like £50,000 a year, against which the produce of the district's penny rate is only £1,950.

      WARE STREET, HOXTON.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to a report in the newspapers about the bad housing conditions in the Ware Street region, in Hoxton; if he is aware that for many of the houses in Ware Street no rent is charged on account of the bad condition of the houses and that about 600 houses in the same area

      1321
      were condemned as being unfit for human habitation as far back as 1914; and if he can state what action he intends taking in regard to these tumbledown, ramshackle, insanitary areas?
      Sir A. MOND: My Department have under consideration a scheme, submitted by the London County Council under Part I of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, with reference to an area of 9 acres, including Ware Street. The proposal is to clear the area by stages and erect new blocks of dwellings for the working classes.
      Mr. THORNE: Is the Department prepared to make provision to give better facilities to local authorities for borrowing money, and at a cheaper rate than is insisted upon at the present time?
      Sir A. MOND: If the bank rate goes down, I have no doubt the local authorities will get the advantage.
      Dr. ADDISON: Ts the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 271,000 houses in the country which are similarly unfit for human habitation, and is he of opinion that these can be left to the play of economic forces?
      Sir A. MOND: My right hon. Friend is aware that last year was the first time the scheme of financial assistance was introduced to enable my Department to make a beginning in dealing with these houses.
      Dr. ADDISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that under the existing Act of Parliament they are entitled to assistance for four years from now?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member is travelling a long way from Ware Street, Hoxton.

      LABOURERS' RENTS, NORFOLK.
      Mr. G. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, in connection with new houses built in Norfolk, sanction was given for the rents to be fixed at one-sixth of the wages of the tenants; that these tenants are agricultural labourers whose wages have been substantially reduced in consequence of recent legislation; whether he has received any requests that the rents of the
      1322
      houses should be reduced proportionately; and whether he will sanction this proportionate reduction, or, at least, some reduction in the rents at present in force?
      Sir A. MOND: No sanction has been given to the fixing of rents at a definite proportion of the wages of the tenants. The rents approved for a large proportion of the rural parishes of Norfolk are as low as 5s., and I do not think that any reduction below that figure can be made.
      Mr. EDWARDS: Is it not a fact that, in consequence of serious reductions in the agricultural labourers' wages, the local authorities now find it impossible to let the houses to the labourers; if so, will he receive a deputation of the local authorities?
      Sir A. MOND: I am not aware of the fact, but I shall be pleased to see whether I can receive a deputation.

    EDUCATION.

      LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ACCOUNTS).
      Mr. HURDasked (1) the Minister of Health whether, in the new form of accounts for education authorities, the receipts have to be submitted under approximately 67 different headings, and the expenditure under 210 separate headings; whether, owing to the intricacy of the form, the salary and travelling expenses of a director of education, for instance, will have to be entered under eight separate headings; whether, apart from the expenditure in purchasing new books of accounts, the form will in many counties call for the employment of additional clerical labour; whether more effective ways can be devised of securing educational efficiency with reduced expenditure;
      (2) The Prime Minister whether he is aware that the executive of the Association of Education Committees have unanimously resolved to recommend local education authorities to decline to carry out the requirements of the Ministry of Health in elaborating the methods of school accounting and increasing bureaucratic control of education; and whether, in the interests of educational harmony and progress, local education authorities may be consulted before any such I schemes are elaborated in future?
      Sir A. MOND: I am aware of the resolution referred to, and it is no doubt the case that the new form contains more detail than the old. As, however, I have previously explained, the Board of Education will be prepared for the current year to waive such details as cannot readily be given and to accept a Return as complete as the existing accounts will permit.
      Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say whether the officials who set up this extreme type of officialism are still at large in the Department?
      Sir A. MOND: These forms, I believe, are required by the Board of Education for the purpose of enabling them to have a better check over the accounts of the local authorities, so as to save money for the taxpayers.

      TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
      Captain MARTINasked the President of the Board of Education how many teachers who refused the terms of the 1898 Act are now enjoying the greatly improved benefits of the 1918 Act?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The number of teachers who did not accept the Act of 1898 and have up to 31st December, 1921, been awarded pensions under the Act of 1918 is 582.
      Captain MARTINasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that for equivalent service, and even for shorter service, the pension under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1918 ranges from three times to eight times the pension under the Acts of 1898 and 1912; and why such exceptionally large increases were deemed necessary?
      Mr. FISHER: I am aware that the benefits under the Act of 1918 are considerably larger than those under the Acts of 1898 and 1912. The general reasons for improvement of the superannuation system were explained when the Act of 1918 was before Parliament, and the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware that the Government is bringing the present system under review and intends to submit a Measure to Parliament shortly.
      Captain MARTINasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that applications for extension
      1324
      of service made by some teachers on reaching the age limit, 65, during the two years ended 31st March, 1919, were granted, and that the applicants were thus made eligible for and admitted to the benefits of the New Teachers (Superanuation) Act of 1918, while applications for extension made during the same period by other teachers of the same age and having identical claims were refused, and that these applicants were thus debarred from the benefits of the new Act; what, if any, was the principle upon which such differential treatment was based; and what steps he proposes to take to compensate these latter teachers for the loss they have sustained as a consequence of their being refused the same extension of service as that granted to their fellows?
      Mr. FISHER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 2nd March to the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills).

      SOUTHLANDS GRAMMAR SCHOOL, NEW ROHNEY.
      Major STEELasked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether he will consider the postponement of the alterations contemplated for Southlands Grammar School. New Romney, at a total cost of £4,400, in view of the fact that the present attendance is very small and in order that the ratepayers may not be burdened with the half of this outlay at a time when the present rates are such a crushing burden;
      (2) whether he is aware that five, teachers are employed at Southlands Grammar School, New Romney, for the education of 54 scholars; and will he insist on a reduction of this staff in order that public money may be saved?
      Mr. FISHER: I do not know precisely how the matter stands at the present moment, but I am making inquiries.

      DAY CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Education whether any other education authorities have adopted the same position in regard to day continuation schools as the West Ham local authority in their refusal to take legal proceedings to enforce attendance; and whether he can give any approximate sum as to the cost of day continuation schools throughout the country?
      Mr. FISHER: At the end of March, 1921, the Birmingham Local Education Authority ceased to maintain day continuation schools on a basis of obligatory attendance, and I understand that the Kent Local Education Authority do not enforce the attendance at London schools of young persons employed in London. The expenditure of local education authorities on day continuation schools in the current financial year is now estimated at less than £500,000.
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that on the whole, as the local authorities are gradually dropping them, they might be done away with altogether and save the £500,000?
      Mr. FISHER: I am awaiting the decision of the London County Council.
      Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the reason why West Ham and other local authorities dropped this particular Act is in consequence of the hostility of the employers?
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Education how many children are of the age at which they should attend day continuation schools, and how many do so attend?
      Mr. FISHER: According to the latest authoritative information at my disposal, namely, the census of 1911, the number of young persons between the ages of 14 and 16 was 1,357,226. I cannot say how many of these would have been liable to the obligation to attend day continuation schools, regard being had to the statutory provisions for exemption. In London the number of scholars enrolled is now about 41,000, but I have not at present the figures for the schools in Swindon, Rugby, and Stratford-on-Avon.
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a thorough inquiry into the position of these schools with a view to their being discontinued for the present?
      Mr. MILLS: Will the President of the Board of Education have some regard to the most critical years of adolescence?

      SIR BASIL ZAHAROFF.
      The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. A. HERBERT:
      1326
      48. To ask the Prime Minister whether the advice of Sir Basil Zaharoff was considered when the Greek landing at Smyrna took place in April, 1919; and if he has been consulted during the present crisis?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received notice that the hon. Member desires to postpone this question. I can only say I regret that an hon. Member should put a question of this kind on the Paper, and not make it his business to attend in the House to ask it.

      TRADE BOARDS INQUIRY.
      Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state the date upon which the Cave Committee on the administration of the Trade Boards will issue its Report?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The Committee, of which Lord Cave is Chairman, have completed the public hearing of evidence and are at present considering the terms of their Report. I am unable to anticipate the exact date when it will be in my hands.

      POPLAR GUARDIANS (EXPENDITURE INQUIRY).
      Sir A. YEOasked the Minister of Health if the inquiry which his Department is undertaking will cover the whole of the expenditure of the Poplar Borough Council and Guardians separately; whether, in view of the present financial position of the guardians and their demands upon the ratepayers, any application to his Department for a loan has been made; whether it has been granted; and, if so, what is the amount, and on what conditions?
      Sir A. MOND: The inquiry extends only to the expenditure of the guardians. Application has been made for sanction to temporary loans amounting to £352,143, the amount actually sanctioned being £221,250. The loans are repayable out of sums which the guardians will receive from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.
      Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reasons why, when

      1327
      loans are granted to the local authorities for unemployment pay and outdoor relief, 1½ per cent. more is charged than is recognised by the bank rate?
      Sir A. MOND: The bank rate is not the rate at which we can borrow money.
      Mr. THORNE: Why should the charge be very much higher?
      Sir A. MOND: The rate and conditions of these loans are regulated by a committee, of which Sir Harry Goschen, a banker of great experience, is chairman, and they lay down the conditions under which this money ought to be lent.

      GUARDIANS (REFRESHMENTS).
      Sir W. de FRECEasked the Minister of Health the policy of his Department with regard to the suggestion of boards of guardians that they should be allowed a small sum for refreshments; and, if such is permitted, whether he will sanction the sum of 2s. per head?
      Sir A. MOND: There is no legal authority for the payment out of the Poor Rate of the cost of meals supplied to members of a board of guardians. But meals are sometimes supplied to guardians during their attendance at their institutions, and there is no objection to this, if they repay the cost.

      MINISTRY OF HEALTH (INSURANCE DEPARTMENT).
      Dr. FARQUHARSONasked the Minister of Health (1) by what method or principle are the salaries, wages, and allowances of the administrative staff, the general clerical staff, and the Insurance Department staff apportioned for payment by the Exchequer or National Health Insurance Funds, respectively;
      (2) why the small sum of £130,600 can only be recovered from National Health Insurance Funds, seeing that the cost of the Insurance Department staff of the Ministry amounts alone to £159,267, and that of the general clerical staff to £329,650, a total of £488,917;
      (3) if he will explain why the increase for 1922–23 of the amount recoverable from
      1328
      National Health Insurance Funds amounts only to £22,945, having regard to the fact that the increased cost of the general clerical staff and Insurance Departments for the same year amounts to £137,612?
      Sir A. MOND: As the answer is rather long, I propose, with permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      Following is the answer:
      The whole of the salaries of the staff employed in the Insurance Department is paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, but the cost of the staff employed on the work of detailed administration of benefits carried out by the Department is recovered from insurance funds and appropriated in aid of the Vote. This work embraces the administration of the Deposit Contributors' Fund, the Navy and Army Insurance Fund and the Exempt Persons Fund and the Approved Societies Officers' Guarantee Fund. The sum estimated to be recovered in 1922–23, namely, £130,600, is the estimated actual cost of this work for the year. The cost of the Medical Referee Service, in so far as it is concerned with the administration of benefits, will also be recovered from insurance funds and an appropriation-in-aid of £66,000 is estimated for on that account. The increase of the amount estimated to be recovered from insurance funds in 1922–23, as compared with 1921–22, is £77,300, and not £22,945, as stated by the hon. Member. I should point out that the cost of general clerical staff to which the hon. Member refers is that for the whole work of the Ministry, and not of the Insurance Department only.

      LONDON BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (LOANS).
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Health the numbers and names of the boards of guardians in the County of London who have applied to his Department for loans owing to the great increase of relief in their respective districts; can he give the total for each board; what the total amount of the loan is for all London; and for what period of years they are granted?
      Sir A. MOND: As the*answer to this question is rather long, I will, with per-

      1329
      mission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

      BOARDS OF GUARDIANS in the County of London who have applied for sanction to the raising of temporary loans or overdrafts under the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921.

      Union.

      Total amount of loans sanctioned.

      Loans to be repaid out of revenue received in respect of financial year.

      £

      Bermondsey

      100,000

      1921–22

      Bethnal Green

      85,000

      1921–22

      Greenwich

      60,000

      1921–22

      45,000

      1922–23

      Poplar

      146,250

      25,000

      1921–22

      50,000

      1922–23

      Southwark

      50,000

      1922–23

      Loans to be repaid by the end of the financial year.

      Lewisbam

      40,000

      1922–23

      Paddington

      20,000

      1922–23

      Wandsworth

      80,000

      1922–23

      Totals: 8 Unions

      701,250

    RUSSIA.

      PRIVATE PROPERTY (EXPROPRIATION).
      Sir W. DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a recent decision of the German Court at Leipzig refusing the application of a Danish company for an order stopping a, sale of furs by the Russian Soviet Government, as such furs had been stolen by the Soviet Government from the Russian warehouse of the said Danish company after it had been sealed with the seal of the Danish Legation, on the ground that a Bolshevist law had been passed in January, 1919, providing that all private property may be expropriated even if such property is under the seals of representatives of foreign Powers; and whether it is proposed to make any representations to the Russian trade representative in this country or to the Soviet Government as to the necessity of repealing this law if trade is to be resumed between this country and Russia?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information respecting the case referred to, and I do not propose to make representations to the Russian authorities on this matter. The conditions under which trade is possible will, of course, come under consideration at Genoa.
      The following are the particulars:
      Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a matter of vital importance to know whether this law, which has been decided by a German court, is in force, and, if in force, what is the object of any trade or agreement with Russia?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot conceive that it can be the business of the British Government to make representation to the Russian Government about a decision of a German court.

      EXPORTS FROM UNITED KINGDOM.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of the exports of manufactured goods from the United Kingdom to Russia, exclusive of Finland, for the years 1911–12–13, respectively; and what is the estimated proportion of this trade which went to the Baltic States and those portions of Russia in Europe and Asia now under the control of the Soviet Government, respectively?
      Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The total values of our exports to Russia, exclusive of Finland, were not recorded for the years 1911 to 1913, and I am, therefore, unable to give the information desired. The value of our exports to the new Baltic States was also not separately recorded for those years.

      SUMMER TIME BILL.
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Summer Time Bill will be taken on Friday?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the convenience of Scottish Members?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I try, as far as I can, to suit the convenience of Members of the House, but it is not a very easy thing to make your arrangements such that every gentleman can be away whenever he wants, and still be present at the discussion of any Bill in which he is interested.

    IRELAND.

      AUXILIARY POLICE (DEBTS).
      Sir M. DOCKRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what approximately was the amount of debt left due in Ireland by the Auxiliary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary; if he is aware that, owing to the tension between that force and the people of some of the Irish towns, the goods supplied for the messes and canteens of the force, as well as goods supplied to individual members, by the traders of Killaloe and other towns were regarded as capable of being commandeered had delivery been refused; and, seeing that the fact mentioned in his letter of the 21st instant that £1,000 toward the partial payment of these debts was supplied from the fines fund of the division proves that responsibility for the obligations of the division was undertaken by the authorities, and seeing that the suggestion made that these Irish traders should seek recovery of the balances of their debts from the scattered members of a disbanded force is an impossible suggestion, will he see that these debts are discharged in full out of Imperial funds?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Mr. Hogge) on 2nd March. I have no knowledge of the amount of these private debts, nor can I accept the suggestion contained in the second part of the question.
      Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Evans, of
      1332
      Limerick, agreed to their debt of £460 with the Government authorities so far back as November last, and, although they have repeatedly applied for payment, it has never been given; and, further, if he does not see his way to meet this from Imperial funds, will he allow this to go before the Commission which is to be set up to deal with losses?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to know about a particular firm.
      Sir M. DOCKRELL: The right hon. Gentleman has given me no answer to my question. I wish to know whether the Government intend to deal with this matter or not.
      Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have answered the question. I have nothing to add to the answer. I regret that tradesmen are not satisfied with the payment of their accounts, as they accepted the receipts in full payment at the time the payments were made.
      Sir M. DOCKRELL: Under duress.

      ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
      Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay a Paper showing the rate of pension to be paid to officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary when disbanded; the amount of any allowance or grant; and on what ground the allowance or grant is given?
      Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir. A White Paper giving this information is being prepared, and will be presented as soon as possible.

      OUTRAGES.
      Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total number of outrages to person or property which have been committed in Southern Ireland since the signing of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty; how many persons have been arrested in connection with these outrages; how many have been brought to trial; and how many convictions have been obtained?
      Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that it is not possible to furnish the hon. Member

      1333
      with the figures for which he asks. I will make inquiry of the Provisional Government, but I presume they have not as yet been able to set up the necessary machinery for the collection of judicial and criminal statistics. I am, however, assured that they are taking—in circumstances which, as the House is well aware, are exceedingly difficult—all possible steps to apprehend and bring to trial persons guilty of outrage.
      Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any cases where convictions have been obtained?
      Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot answer a question like that offhand.
      Sir W. DAVISON: It is on the Paper!
      Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot answer a question like that without notice, and I am sure that the House will appreciate that. The Provisional Government of Ireland is responsible for the government of that country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—exercise responsibility for the government of that country, and there are no means except through that Government of securing statistics of this and similar matters to which hon. Members refer.
      Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Colonial Secretary has on several occasions informed the House that the British Government is still responsible for law and order in Southern Ireland?
      Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also secure from the Northern Government, which has all its machinery in operation, similar facts to those asked for by hon. Members opposite?
      Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Gentleman had better put that question down.
      Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Arising out of the answer—
      Mr. SPEAKER: Colonel Norton-Griffiths.

      OVERSEA SETTLEMENT (EX-ARMY OFFICERS).
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has been approached by any of the Dominions or the Colonies with reference to the
      1334
      settlement of retiring Army officers in the Colonies; and whether, in view of the approaching disbandment of Army units and the consequent demand for employment of the personnel, he will consider whether schemes for emigration to and settlement in the Colonies might with advantage be drawn up in conjunction with the Colonial Governments?
      Mr. AMERY: The Oversea Settlement Committee have discussed with representatives of Oversea Governments the possibilities of settlement in the Empire for retiring Army officers, with particular reference to the approaching disbandment of various units. It will not be possible, however, for His Majesty's Government to co-operate in schemes of settlement unless and until the Bill announced in the Gracious Speech from the Throne is passed.
      Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: When docs the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Bill will be before the House?
      Mr. AMERY: I am afraid that I can at present add nothing to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the 7th of this month.
      Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House do his utmost to expedite the introduction of the Bill?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to put a question to me on the subject, I will be very glad to give an answer, but I am attending to other matters at the moment, and I am not quite certain to what Bill he is referring.

    KENYA,

      DISTURBANCES.
      Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any reason to believe that the recent rioting and disturbances in Kenya were owing to local conditions or were the work of outside agencies, or whether they have been largely fomented by Indians affected by the prevailing unrest in the Empire?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): I regret that I can add nothing to the answer given on Monday to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend the

      1335
      Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James).
      Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any natives of Nairobi were shot down before any hostile act against the police was made; and whether at any time a single policeman, soldier, or white man was in any way injured by those who were demanding the release of Harry Thuku?
      Mr. WOOD: I have received no information from the Governor about this incident since the announcement sent to the Press on the 17th of March, and I must wait for the despatch which the Governor is sending.

      LABOUR ORDINANCE.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the draft Ordinance to revise the Kenya labour legislation has yet been drafted; has it yet been considered by himself; and, in view of pledges on the subject and the riots in Nairobi, if he will hasten the alteration in the law?
      Mr. WOOD: I informed the hon. Member for Houghton le Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) on 23rd March that I had not received the draft Ordinance, but that the attention of the Governor had been drawn to the matter by telegraph. I cannot say what progress has been made with the drafting of the Ordinance.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has this Ordinance been drafted in the Colonial Office here, or is it a matter left entirely to the Governor of Kenya?
      Mr. WOOD: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will refresh his mind as to the despatch of last autumn, he will see that the Governor was invited to submit the draft Ordinance to the Secretary of State.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the Ordinance has yet been drafted and is on its way, or whether it has not yet been drafted?
      Mr. WOOD: That is exactly what we have wired to find out.

      LAND (NATIVE TITLES).
      Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
      1336
      whether the natives of Kenya Colony possess, either tribally or individually, any indigenous titles to land which give them security against expropriation?
      Mr. WOOD: I do not clearly understand the hon. Member's reference to indigenous titles. Before the British administration there were no courts in which a title to land could be upheld, and natives were open to the attack or pressure of their neighbours. An explanation of the principles on which native land matters are now determined will be found on page 19 of House of Commons Paper No. 68 of 1912.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have the natives any title whatever to their reserves, or are those reserves still unprotected by law?
      Mr. WOOD: I cannot offhand answer as to the position in law, but I can tell the hon. and gallant Member that only so late as last August the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in a despatch to the Governor of Kenya, laid down the principles on which land might be taken, and I think that probably meets the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

      NATAL PROVINCIAL ORDINANCE.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give to the House regarding the refusal of assent to the Natal Provincial Ordinance by the Governor-General?
      Mr. WOOD: I assume that my hon. Friend alludes to the Ordinance dealing with the township franchise referred to in his question of the 11th August last. The assent of the Governor-General was withheld on the advice of his Ministers under the provisions of Section 90 of the South Africa Act, 1909.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.

      ESTABLISHMENT (HALTON).
      Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Air the total number of persons of all descriptions, male and female, now connected with Halton; how many boys are now in training there; how many instructors are

      1337
      normally employed there; how many combatant and non-combatant members of the Air Force and/or other Government services, other than boys and instructors, are working at or are connected with Halton; and how many civilians, male and female, are working at or are connected with Halton?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The answer to the first question is 3,588; to the second, that there are at present 2,075 men and boys under training; to the third, 233; to the fourth, 834. With regard to the fifth question, the present civilian staff Lumbers 446, but on 1st April next, when most of the work on which they are engaged will be put out to contract, this number will be reduced to 83.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Do not these formidable figures suggest the possibility of over-staffing, and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman accept the suggestion that the matter should be looked into to see if it is possible to comb out?
      Captain GUEST: Yes, Sir, most certainly; I will consider any suggestion very carefully.

      PILOTS (FLEET WORK).
      Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for Air how many pilpts working with the Fleet can fly on and off aircraft carriers; and how many flights have taken place off the turrets of capital ships since 1st January, 1921?
      Captain GUEST: There are many pilots capable of flying on and off aircraft carriers. I do not think it would be in the public interest to give the numbers. The same consideration applies to statistics as to flying off turrets, but I may state that such flights have been rare during the period named.

      LONDON UNITED DAIRIES COMPANY.
      Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Minister of Agriculture what companies are included in the London United Dairies Company (milk combine); and how much of London's milk supply is directly controlled by it?
      The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): With my hon. Friend's permission I will have the reply
      1338
      to the first part of the question set out in the OFFICIAL EEPOET. With regard to the second part, no official statistics are available which afford the information desired.
      Mr. RENDALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any effort to get the United Dairies Company to meet the Farmers' Union?
      Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I understand they have already met.
      Following is the answer to the first part of the question:
      I am informed that United Dairies, Limited, has a controlling interest in the following companies:

      Aylesbury Dairy Company, Limited.

      Alliance Dairy Company, Limited.

      Great Western & Metropolitan Dairies, Limited.

      R. Higgs & Sons, Dairies, Limited.

      Morrison & Fleets' Dairies, Limited.

      Salisbury, Semley, and Gillingham Dairies, Limited, now known as "United Dairies (Wholesale), Limited."

      Welford & Sons, Limited.

      Welford's Surrey Dairies, Limited.

      West London Dairy Company, Limited.

      Wilts United Dairies, Limited.

      (During 1920–21 the subsidiary companies consolidated their London wholesale milk business under the name "London Wholesale Dairies, Limited," and that of the provincial creameries under the name "United Dairies (Wholesale), Limited.")

      CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.
      Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that our homebred animals are rapidly deteriorating and becoming affected with tuberculosis, that is, cattle, sheep, and pigs; and, if that is so, will he remove the embargo and allow healthy cattle, etc., to come in from Canada and thus introduce fresh blood into our stock, and therefore enable us to get cheaper and better milk and cheaper meat?
      Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The reply to the first part of the question is emphatically in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.
      Mr. CAIRNS: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—is the embargo to remain on?
      Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot hear the question of the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better put the question down.

      ARMY VETERINARY STAFF.
      Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he can say of the veterinary staff borne on the Army Votes for 922–23 and 1914–15, how-many were on the home and how many on the foreign establishment; and, in each year, how many horses were on the home and foreign establishments, respectively?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): The figures are as follow:
      At Home.
      1914–15.—24,714 horses and 309 veterinary staff.
      1922–23.—14,867 horses and 268 veterinary staff.
      Abroad.
      1914–15.—4,025 horses and 54 veterinary staff.
      1922–23.—11,347 horses and 99 veterinary staff.
      The figures for 1922–23 exclude 27 officers and other ranks at present in Palestine and Iraq.
      Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say why it is not possible for the veterinary officers to look after the same number of horses now as they did in 1914–15?
      Sir R. SANDERS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at the answer I think he will find that it is still so.

      UNITED SERVICES FUND.
      Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for War what has been done to carry out the promises of Army Council Instruction No. 1374, of December, 1918, which referred to the disposal
      1340
      of money accumulated from canteen and other sources; seeing that the United Services Fund was instituted in order to carry out such instruction, that the United Services Fund has now ceased to function owing to lack of money, and that a profit of ten million pounds was made during the War on overseas canteens alone, how much of such profit was handed over to the United Services Fund; and what has become of the money?
      Sir R. SANDERS: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the figures which I gave on the 22nd instant to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme, to those given on page 5 of the Report of the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, and to the statement made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary in the course of the Debate on the 22nd instant. My hon. and gallant Friend will see that the gross total which it is hoped to pay to the United Services Fund is estimated at £7,000,000, and that the question of the disposal of any other assets derived from the trading of the Expeditionary Force Canteens and the Navy and Army Canteen Board must await the completion of the accounts, the preparation of which was recommended by the Committee which I have mentioned. Of the £7,000,000, £3,849,000 has already been paid, and I hope to make a statement regarding the balance at an early date. I understand that the United Services Fund has not yet ceased to function owing to lack of money.

      MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (WOMEN AUDITORS).
      Major HILLSasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the difficulty of obtaining properly-qualified men auditors in the audit of Awards Department, Ministry of Pensions, Chelsea, he will retain in that Department the most experienced and efficient women auditors up to the number of one-half of those employed?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): No serious difficulties have, so far, been encountered in obtaining suitable ex-service men for the work in ques-

      1341
      tion, and there are, consequently, no grounds for limiting the substitution of the existing non-service staff. Their replacement is, in fact, approaching completion.

      PALESTINE (EMIGRATION).
      Mr. MILLSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any, and, if so, what restrictions are imposed upon emigration from this country to Palestine, and upon emigration from Palestine to Great Britain, the United States, and the continent of Europe?
      Mr. WOOD: No restrictions are imposed upon emigration from this country into Palestine, but intending immigrants have, of course, to comply with the Immigration Regulations of the Palestine Government. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative save in so far as the Immigration Regulations of the various countries concerned prohibit the entry of any particular individual who does not satisfy all the conditions required.

      NATIVE LANDS (ALIENATION).
      Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received information as to the area of lands in native occupation alienated to white men since 1914?
      Mr. WOOD: No, Sir.

    POST OFFICE.

      TEMPORARY STAFF, STOKE-ON-TRENT.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the temporary staff employed at Stoke-on-Trent during the last Christmas season were paid at rates which were 25 per cent. below the standard rate for temporary employés which had been agreed upon by the Government in consultation with the staff representatives; that the postmaster of Stoke-on-Trent informed the North Staffordshire Trades and Labour Council that the wages provided for in the agreement were not applicable to staff engaged for seasonal pressure; that the postmaster justified the lower rates on the ground that the wages fixed by the agreement were subject to an early
      1342
      reduction which came into operation subsequent to the period in question; and whether, in these circumstances, he will give an assurance that the agreed rate for temporary workers shall be paid to casuals engaged for work during any future Christmas season?
      The ASSISTANT-POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The rates of pay of the staff employed to assist during the Christmas season are fixed, within certain limits, at the discretion of the local postmaster. The standard wage rates for temporary staff referred to are not regarded as necessarily applicable to the casual staff employed at Christmas. It is the case that the rates paid to the casual staff during the last Christmas season were below those then payable to the temporary staff in general, but these rates were then on the point, of reduction; and I have no reason to suppose that the rates actually paid at Stoke-on-Trent were not adequate.

      POSTAGE STAMPS (ADVERTISING).
      Mr. L. MALONEasked the Post master-General whether he intends to let any portions of the surface of postage stamps for advertising purposes?
      Mr. PEASE: My right hon. Friend has provisionally approved a scheme for letting the backs of postage stamps for advertising purposes, and he hopes soon to be in a position to invite tenders.

      TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENTS, DUBLIN.
      Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Post master-General whether he is aware that Messrs. R. Morgan and L. G. Allen, traffic superintendent, Dublin, and assistant traffic superintendent, Dublin, respectively, have made several applications to be allowed to return to service in England; and whether he will give an assurance that these officers, who were transferred from England in 1908, will not be transferred either to the Government of the Irish Free State or of Northern Ireland against their will?
      Mr. PEASE: The applications by the officers mentioned have been received and placed on record. They will be considered when opportunity offers, but nothing can be done at present, as no officer of corresponding rank has applied for transfer to Southern Ireland, and there is no available vacancy in Great

      1343
      Britain. I regret I am not in a position to give the assurance asked for.
      Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Are these men Englishmen or Irishmen; if Englishmen, ought they not to be transferred back to this country?
      Mr. PEASE: I quite see the difficulty, but I am not in a position to give the assurance asked for in the question.

      GERMAN-RUSSIAN TRANSPORT COMPANY.
      Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any detailed information regarding the formation of the German-Russian Transport Company, which it is understood has been formed between the Russian Government and the Hamburg-Amerika Line; whether this company is allied to the American-Harriman group in the United States; and whether its formation provides direct facilities for the development of Russo-America trade via Germany?
      Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have no information as to the constitution of this company beyond what has appeared in the Press, which is to the effect that its capital is owned, as to one half, by the Soviet Government, as to one quarter, by the Hamburg America Line, and, as to the remaining quarter, by the Harriman group. It is to be presumed that the creation of the company is intended to facilitate trade between Russia and America, via Germany.

      CONSULAR REPORTS.
      Mr. HANNONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Report of the Executive Council of the Association of Chambers of Commerce for the year ending 28th February, 1922, has come to his notice; and whether, in view of the statements therein contained relative to the use of Form K by consular officers and the value to British commerce of prompt and concise information with regard to foreign markets, he will state the reason
      1344
      for the decrease in the number of these reports during the past year and account for the fact that certain consular districts, notably in France and Belgium, have returned no such reports?
      Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the question is rather long, and, with the permission of the House, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      Following is the answer:
      I have seen a proof copy of that portion of the Executive Council's report which deals with Form "K" information. The decrease in the number of Form "K" reports during the past year is due to a variety of reasons, the principal of which is that reports circulated under this system relate only to importing firms whose financial position appears to be sound, and that, in view of the worldwide trade depression, Consular Officers have refrained from reporting on many firms in respect of whom Form "K" reports would normally be rendered. It must also be remembered that the number of firms reported in a single year is not a fair criterion, since a Consul would not normally repeat in the subsequent lists the name of a firm once reported. It follows, therefore, that if a Consul has made extensive returns in one or two years, his returns in subsequent years would give fewer names. The variations in the extent to which the Form "K" system has been carried out by Consular Officers in different countries have been receiving the attention of my Department, and fresh instructions are in course of preparation, but the extent to which a Consular Officer can furnish "K" form reports depends on the size of his staff and the volume of his other duties. I should also explain that failure by a Consular Officer to furnish a large number of "K" form reports does not imply neglect of the commercial side of his work, for much the greater proportion of the commercial information received by my Department from its overseas officers comes quite independently of the "K" form system. I should add that very many of the posts mentioned in the Executive Council's report as not having furnished reports are posts held by non-salaried officers, from whom "K" form reports cannot in ordinary circumstances be expected.

      RAND DISTURBANCES (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY).
      Mr. SEDDON(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the South African Government have decided to set up a Commission of Inquiry into the recent outbreak on the Rand, and, if so, have they asked His Majesty's Government to assist?
      Mr. WOOD: Yes, Sir. As was announced in the House of Assembly yesterday, a Commission of Inquiry is being set up for the purpose of investigating matters in relation to the recent industrial disturbances. His Majesty's Government were requested by the Union Government, to lend the services of Mr. Brace, Labour Adviser to the Department of Mines, to serve as a member of this Commission, and they were glad to be able to do so. Mr. Brace is, I understand, sailing for South Africa at the end of this week.
      Mr. HOLMES: What arrangements have been made with regard to the work which Mr. Brace has been accustomed to do, and when is he expected to return to this country?
      Mr. WOOD: The first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question should be addressed to the Mines Department. With regard to the second part, it is expected that Mr. Brace's work will occupy about three months.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  EASTER RECESS.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I desire to ask the Leader of the House three questions in regard to the business of the House—in the first place, whether the Lords Amendments to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill will be taken to-day; secondly, if the answer to my first question be in
  the negative, when will the Lords Amendments to the Irish Free State Bill be taken; and, thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information or suggestion as to the probable date of the Easter Recess?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A round table Conference began this morning at the Colonial Office between Ministers representing the Governments of Northern and Southern Ireland, and Ministers representing His Majesty's Government. It is not possible to decide on the treatment to be accorded to the various Amendments of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill until the Conference has proceeded further with its labours. I am therefore obliged to postpone the consideration of the Lords Amendments until to-morrow, when it will be taken as the first Order of the Day. Under the circumstances, I hope it will be quite easy for us to finish to-night before eleven o'clock the Second Beading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill which will become the first effective Order, and the East India Loans (Railways and Irrigation) Bill. It is very important that we should get both these Measures through before Easter, and I propose to ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Bale, in case further time should be needed.
  As regards the holidays, assuming that we can get the necessary business done, we propose to adjourn on Wednesday, the 12th April, and not meet again until Wednesday, the 26th April.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Proceedings on the Unemployment Insurance Bill and in Committee on East India Loans [Railways and Irrigation] be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 80.

  Division No. 66.]

  AYES.

  [3.55 p.m.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

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

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.

  Armitage, Robert

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

  Briggs, Harold

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

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

  Britton, G. B.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

  Pearce, Sir William

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

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

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Percy, Lard Eustace (Hastings)

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

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Hinds, John

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Carew, Charles Robert S.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Casey, T. W.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Rae, H. Norman

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

  Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

  Hudson, R. M.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cheyne, Sir William Watson

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

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

  Clough, Sir Robert

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Reid, D. D.

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Remnant, Sir James

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Renwick, Sir George

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Jones, J. T (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Cope, Major William

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Seddon, J. A.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

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

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Altred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Lldyd, George Butler

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Davies, David (Montgomery)

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

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

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

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

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

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lorden, John William

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Dockrell, Sir Maurice

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

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lyle, C. E. Leonard

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Stevens, Marshall

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

  Sugden, W. H.

  Evans, Ernest

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

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

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Martin, A. E.

  Wallace, J.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Matthews, David

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

  Forrest, Walter

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz

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

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Morris, Richard

  Waring, Major Walter

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Morrison, Hugh

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Gee, Captain Robert

  Murchison, C. K.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Murray, William (Dumfries)

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

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

  Neal, Arthur

  Windsor, Viscount

  Grant, James Augustus

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

  Wise, Frederick

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

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

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

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

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

  Grelg, Colonel Sir James William

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

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

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

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

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Younger, Sir George

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Parker, James

  Wilson.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis O.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Adamson, Ht. Hon. William

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Cairns, John

  Devlin, Joseph

  Barker, G (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Cape, Thomas

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Beck, Sir Arthur Cecil

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

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Foot, Isaac

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Lawson, John James

  Sutton, John Edward

  Gillis, William

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Swan, J. E.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lunn, William

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

  Graham D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

  Mills, John Edmund

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

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Tillett, Benjamin

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

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

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

  Myers, Thomas

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Hallas, Eldred

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Halls, Walter

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Wignall, James

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Hayday, Arthur

  O'Grady, Captain James

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

  Irving, Dan

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Rose, Frank H.

  Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Rhys J. Davies.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  First and Third Resolutions agreed to.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of increased contributions towards unemployment benefit, and any other payment to be made out of the Unemployment Fund, and of authorising the Treasury to make advances out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, and to borrow for such advances by the issue of such securities as the Treasury think proper, the principal of and interest on such securities to be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to unemployment—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
NOTICES OF MOTION.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
  On this day two weeks, to call attention to the question of industrial disputes, and to move a Resolution.—[Captain Bagley.]

  AGRICULTURAL RATES.
  On this day two weeks, to call attention to the burdens on agriculture involved in our rating system, and to move a Resolution.—[Captain E. Evans.]
  On this day two weeks, to call attention to the burdens on agriculture, and to move a Resolution.—[Lieut.-Colonel Guinness for Mr. Betterton.]
  Viscountess ASTOR: On behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy, who
  1350
  was not in his place), may I gave notice—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Has the Noble Lady been asked by the hon. and gallant Member to do so?
  Viscountess ASTOR: No.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  MONEYLENDERS BILL,
  "further to amend the Law with respect to persons carrying on business as Moneylenders," presented by Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL; supported by Sir Ian Hamilton Benn, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Neil Maclean, and Mr. Murchison; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL,
  "to make further provision with respect to the cost of medical benefit and to the expenses of the administration of benefits under the Acts relating to National Health Insurance, to repeal Section two and to amend Section twenty-nine of the National Health Insurance Act, 1918, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir ALFRED MOND; supported by Dr. Macnamara; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]
  OXFORD AND ST. ALBANS WINE PRIVILEGES (ABOLITION) BILL.
  Ordered, "That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Oxford and St. Albans Wine Privileges (Abolition) Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills."

  BILLS REPORTED.
  Metropolitan Railway Bill,
  Northampton Corporation Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords],
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the Third time.
  Madras Railway Annuities Bill [Lords],
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

  1. "That, in the case of the Croydon Gas [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  2. "That, in the case of the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council (Drainage), Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

  3. "That, in the case of the Exeter Corporation, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  4.0 P.M.
  Nineteen months ago trade depression and unemployment began to settle down upon us. It developed in volume and intensity until by the middle of last year over two millions of people were registered as wholly unemployed and a million as on short time. During the latter half of last year the gloom fitfully lightened here and there. But the year ended with no sign of any break on a wide front. This year opened with a slender promise of improvement, which has been steadily maintained week by week. As a matter of fact, for the 10 weeks since 10th January to last Monday week the number of persons registered as wholly unemployed has fallen from 1,934,000 to 1,762,000—a welcome reduction of 172,000. In the same period the number of persons claiming benefit as short time workers has fallen from 303,900 to 236,000—another welcome reduction of 67,900. But with the opening of March two grave industrial disputes loomed up. As to these, let me say no word that is not a devout prayer for speedy and equitable settlement.
  A year ago long protracted industrial trouble in a great industry profoundly accentuated the depression through which we were passing. To-day industrial trouble would throw us right back into the gloom out of which there are signs that we may be emerging. A year ago industrial trouble rendered more acute and serious the affliction which was then running its course. To-day industrial dispute would disastrously throw back the patient in what, I think, may be the early stages of recovery from that affliction. I most earnestly remind the parties to these disputes of this fact. Surely it must compel them to the resolute determination to secure, and secure as promptly as may be, settlements equitable and durable so that we may take full advantage, and at the earliest
  1374
  moment, of the turn of the tide. The tide is not making yet with anything approaching a definite current, but already here and there the water is creeping back again over the parched sands. That may not indeed be a real tidal movement. It may only be a temporary impetus. But at any rate let us be ready.
  During this long and distressing period of unemployment, effort, on a scale out of relation to anything attempted in the past, has been put forward both by the municipalities and the Government—notwithstanding the straitened condition of national finance—to find remedy and palliative. And of this many-sided and continuing endeavour we are here to-day seeking to review and adjust to the necessities of the immediate future the part taken and to be taken by the scheme of insurance against unemployment.
  Happily, before the slump came upon us in the fall of 1920, we had widely extended the area covered by the original Insurance Act. We had indeed increased the number of persons covered by insurance from 4 millions to 12 millions. On the other hand, it was unfortunate that, when the Act of 1920 actually came into operation, unemployment was pretty serious, with worse to follow. Therefore, it was quite out of the question to impose upon the 8 millions of newly-insured people the usual condition that a number of contributions paid while in employment must stand to the credit of the claimant for benefit. I was compelled to depart, for the time being from that sound principle and pay benefit in advance of the contributions that will be paid hereafter when prosperity again comes our way, laying down such conditions of eligibility as were possible in the circumstances. In the end, I laid down that 20 weeks' employment since 31st December, 1919, in an occupation rendered insurable by the Act of 1920 should be the first condition to be satisfied. Of course, here as always, and I must emphasise this, the claimant for benefit must foe genuinely seeking employment and unable to obtain it.
  Three things have made this policy possible. In the first place, the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, in the period up to November, 1920, had accumulated a

  1375
  fund of 22 millions, owing to good employment during the War, and the relief afforded since the War by the Out-of-Work Donation Scheme. This fund was drawn upon. In the next place, the contributions from employers, employed, and the State have, as a temporary measure, been very substantially increased. Finally, the balance of money not thus provided has been raised by way of loan to be repaid.
  These relaxations of the ordinary rules of insurance have been inevitable. But they do impose a serious strain upon the principles upon which the Act is founded. They tend to cause benefit on the uncovenanted side—that is the side with which I am now dealing, the side that covers the cases of so many of those newly-insured in the fall of 1920—to be looked upon rather as a compassionate grant than as an insurance benefit. That fact is very much before me. And in this Act, though compelled to make further provision of uncovenanted benefit, I am trying to make whatever opportunities for employment that may arise as a result of improved trade concomitant with a steady re-establishment of the permanent and true principles of insurance.
  This Bill is necessary because unemployment still remains widespread and the provision Parliament has already made is drawing to a close. A year ago we made provision for 44 weeks' emergency or uncovenanted benefit, to cover the period from March, 1921, to June, 1922. For many that will be exhausted on 5th April. Last November we passed a most useful and timely Measure, the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Act, under which, for six months, an addition of 5s. weekly for the wife and 1s. each weekly for the children has been made to the 15s. benefit of the unemployed insured workman. That Act comes to an end on 9th May. In the present Bill I am proposing to keep the insurance benefit at its present level—15s. a week for the man and 12s. a week for the woman. I am proposing to continue the provision of the temporary Dependants Act of last November, thus adding to the 15s. benefit of the man 5s. a week for his wife and 1s. a week for each of the children.
  Mr. G. BARNES: For how long?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Till June, 1923, when this Measure comes to an end. To do this, the existing rate of contributions from employers, employed persons, and the State, at present payable under both Insurance and Dependants' Acts, must be continued. Further, I must ask for additional borrowing powers. Under this Bill I am providing 15 weeks' benefit up to the end of October. The first payment of half a week will be made on 21st April, 14 days after the last payment of benefit to those who will have exhausted benefit under existing legislation. And, since the 15 weeks' benefit is to cover 30 weeks of the calendar, I am dividing up the 15 weeks into three fives, with a five weeks' gap between each. From November, 1922, to June, 1923, I provide 12 weeks' benefit, with two possible further extensions of five weeks each. That is a provision, following upon the extended periods of benefit already granted since the fall of 1920, which the three-fold contributory system, assisted by large borrowings for the time being, could alone make possible. It is a provision which imposes a heavy burden upon employers, upon employed persons, and upon the State. But it is a provision which we feel bound to ask the House to make, and in asking it, to remember that we have already had 18 months of very grave and continuous unemployment; that trade union out-of-work funds are pretty well exhausted; and that such material resources as unemployed people may have had at the outset of this affliction must by now have disappeared.
  I think it right to remind the House also that the provision which has been made and is now contemplated, under this three-fold system of compulsory contribution to an insurance scheme, has, in fact helped hundreds of thousands of men and women, during this long period of distress, to avoid recourse to the guardians and to Poor Law relief. This is not only very much more satisfactory to themselves, but it has enormously relieved the burdens that would otherwise have fallen upon the local rates. These are the main considerations that led us to come down in favour of continuing benefit at its present level, even though that course involves a substantially increased charge upon an already heavily-burdened Exchequer.

  1377
  My financial calculations in this Bill are based on the assumption that the number of persons wholly unemployed, making due allowance for persons on short time, will not exceed, between now and the end of June, 1,900,000, and will not exceed 1,500,000, on an average over the whole period June, 1922, to June, 1923. These are very cautious assumptions. Of course grave industrial dislocation would upset them, but they are very cautious assumptions, and they would enable me, if necessary, to provide £60,000,000 in benefit during the 15 months from April, 1922, to June, 1923. Of this amount, the employers would furnish rather more than three-eighths, the employed persons rather less than three-eighths, the State about one fourth. The proportion paid by the State under the Insurance Act, of 1920 is one-fifth of the total, and I propose to work back to that proportion when the present emergency is passed. The actual amount of the State contribution during the 15 months will be £14,700,000. That is £5,800,000 more than the State contribution for that period under the existing legislation.
  I am here dealing with a period of 15 months. As regards the financial year 1922–23, the Estimates already laid make a provision of £7,610,000 as the State's contribution to the Insurance Fund, and £551,760 to the Dependants Fund, making a total of £8,161,760. I shall therefore have to lay a Supplementary Estimate to cover the further provision that will come in course of payment during the financial year 1922–23 as a result of the provisions of this Bill. It will be presented without delay. My present borrowing powers are £20,000,000. When, last June, I got these £20,000,000 borrowing powers, my assumption was that from June, 1921, to June, 1922, I should have to carry an average of 1¼ million persons wholly unemployed. As a matter of fact, recovery has been so far retarded that the average for the period in question will, so far as can be seen, be somewhere round about 1¾ million persons.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is what I said at the time.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not remember the figure.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not give a figure, but I said that the right hon.
  1378
  Gentleman's figures would be largely exceeded.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I well remember that, but I did not remember that the right hon. Baronet was quite so precise a prophet as his interruption suggested.
  At that time I thought that we might assume an average of half a million persons wholly unemployed during the year from June, 1922, to June, 1923, but here again nearer touch with our prospects makes it manifest that we shall not see an improvement to that extent. As I have already said, therefore, I am basing my calculations for that period on the assumption that we shall have to carry not less than 1½ million persons wholly unemployed, and I am extending my emergency benefit provision accordingly. Further, when a year ago I got borrowing powers to the extent of £20,000,000, I said that I should have exhausted £16,000,000 of these powers in the early months of this year. I have not done so. Indeed, I have exhausted to date about £14,000,000. But, on the other hand, a year ago I thought I saw my way from the peak of £16,000,000 in the early part of this year to such repayments as would leave the debt outstanding at about £14,000,000 at the end of June of this year. Again, the seriousness and persistence of unemployment will prevent any such repayment between now and June. On the contrary, I am afraid I shall have to continue using my borrowing powers, which, on the present level of unemployment, will be exhausted by about the end of June. This is due to the continued gravity of unemployment, and to the further emergency provision which this Bill contemplates.
  In order to make this provision, therefore, and to carry it forward to June, 1923—that is to say, 12 months beyond the period for which in the legislation of last year I made the emergency provision—I am compelled to ask in this Bill for an increase of my borrowing powers from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000. I speak of that in the Memorandum to the Bill as an increase of about £11,000,000. That is because a portion of my existing £20,000,000 powers will be transferred to Ireland for the purpose of administering Unemployment Insurance. It means that in all, if the House agrees, I shall have for Great Britain borrowing powers up

  1379
  to £30,000,000. To the extent that I draw upon that, I have got to repay it.
  I have in this Bill made every endeavour to grant this new provision of emergency or uncovenanted benefit on lines that shall strictly conserve the available help for those who really deserve and need it. To this end the uncovenanted benefit of the Bill will be granted under the conditions laid down for the recent extension of six weeks. Persons who have paid contributions entitling them to benefit under the permanent provisions of the Acts will not be subject to these conditions. Their rights will be determined in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and in particular, Sections 7 and 8 of that Act; and of course, as I have already said, all persons seeking benefit, covenanted or uncovenanted, must be really trying to find work and unable to obtain it. I should tell the House, further, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and myself have taken steps to secure co-operation between the local employment committees, the employment exchanges, and the boards of guardians, all these bodies being concerned with the administration of financial assistance to mitigate the hardships of unemployment; and also between these bodies and the various authorities putting in hand relief work of different kinds. I lay it down also in this Bill that the guardians in giving assistance for the relief of distress must take into account the amounts received under this insurance scheme. That is in Clause 12.
  Before I leave this important question of conserving our resources for those most in need of assistance, let me say that, undoubtedly, there is a danger that in a long continued depression of the kind we are now undergoing there may be persons who claim benefit without making really serious endeavour to find employment. We are all of us creatures of habit. A long period of enforced idleness is not, with any of us, the best stimulus for the work habit. It is ridiculous to suppose that benefit under this Bill will prevent a man seeking work who has a wife and children dependent upon him. But in the case of young persons who rely on relatives for food and shelter, the position is not quite the same.
  1380
  Unfortunately, the state of trade is such that it is rarely possible in such a case to test alleged inability to find work by offering a vacancy. I wish it were.
  This is a matter in which we want the co-operation of employers. I have appealed before, and, because it is of the utmost importance, I take leave to appeal again to employers to send us their vacancies as trade revives, so that, before benefit is paid, we may call the attention of the applicant who says he cannot get work to a vacancy which we know is open. For a long period, of course, vacancies have been few and far between, except in the case of certain women's occupations. There they have been most useful to us. In the year 1921 the Exchanges placed 277,800 women and girls in employment, the separate individuals covered by these placings numbering 230,192. I make this latter point clear, because there has been a disposition in some quarters to pooh pooh this effort, and to suggest that we are quoting a figure which merely means that the same individual has been placed over and over again.
  Before I sit down I must say a word in regard to the relation of the present proposals to any permanent scheme of unemployment insurance for the future. The object of this Bill is to deal with the situation arising in the period up to July, 1923. As far as possible, therefore, no changes are proposed which may hamper freedom of action in considering any permanent changes in the scheme which may hereafter be thought to be desirable. The recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure, for instance, suggested, firstly, an investigation of the machinery of the present scheme; and, secondly, an examination of the possibility of extending the system of unemployment insurance by industries.
  The possibility of effecting economies in the machinery of the present scheme by joint arrangements with the Health Insurance Scheme and otherwise is being investigated by a Committee appointed by the Minister of Health and myself, and presided over by the Government Actuary. One of the chief points which this Committee is examining is whether it is practicable to have a single card and a single set of stamps for Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance, instead of two cards and two sets of

  1381
  stamps as at present. Owing to the complication of the matter immediate action cannot be expected. With regard to the single card, in particular, the Committee have reported that it will not be practicable to bring it into use next July. Should the Committee ultimately devise a scheme which is economical and practicable, I shall welcome it and shall be most glad to consider its adoption.
  The other recommendation of the Committee on National Expenditure was as regards Unemployment Insurance by Industries. Section 18 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, enables industries to set up separate unemployment insurance schemes of their own on certain conditions. For various reasons—not least of which was the great depression in trade—litle advantage was taken of this provision. And owing to the large amount of unemployment benefit paid, and the consequent strain on the Unemployment Fund, it unfortunately became necessary in July last to lay it down that no further special schemes could be approved until the Unemployment Fund again became solvent. No hope can be held out that it will be possible to allow industries to form special schemes until provision is made for the debt of the Fund to be liquidated. Unless such provision is made the National Exchequer would have to make good the deficiency. The depression in trade has been so grave and so widespread that practically all industries have drawn large amounts of benefit out of the Unemployment Fund; and even in the few cases where this is not so it is clearly right that the burden of paying back the money which has been borrowed should be shared by all alike. When it is possible to re-open the door to special schemes without throwing an additional burden on the Exchequer, all practicable steps will most certainly be taken to promote their formation. This time may, unfortunately, be still some way off. But, at any rate, this gives an opportunity of considering with care the lines on which such schemes may best be formed. To that end I sent out on 22nd February a circular letter outlining the problem to all the organisations of employers and employed in the country, and asking for their views as to the best method of solution. It is too early as yet to forecast the results we may obtain from this circular letter. But the number of
  1382
  communications I have received in reply shows that the matter is arousing considerable interest.
  In conclusion, in moving the Second Reading of this Measure, which will inevitably place once again a very heavy strain upon the machinery connected with the payment of unemployment benefit, I feel in duty bound to refer once more to the zeal and public spirit with which that machinery is being operated all over the country. The unemployment insurance legislation of the past two years, coupled with the prevailing heavy unemployment, has called for most exceptional efforts on the part both of the staffs of the Employment Exchanges and of the voluntary helpers who, in the Local Employment Committees, have done so much to assist us in the examination of claims to unemployment benefit. Throughout the whole year 1921 there were, at the Exchanges, on the average, week by week, a million and a half persons wholly unemployed claiming unemployment insurance benefit and over half a million claiming benefit as short-time workers. The number of claims to unemployment benefit examined by Local Employment Committees under the emergency provisions represents a tremendous volume of work. As Minister of Labour I wish to take this further opportunity of paying my grateful tribute to the signal social service rendered during this long period of depression both by the Local Employment Committees and the Exchange staffs.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I ought first to say, lest there should be any natural criticism as to the absence of many of my colleagues, that it is due to a meeting specially convened for a very useful purpose and it is with no desire either to ignore or not to be present at this most important Debate.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: Could there be anything more important than this?
  Mr. THOMAS: Something that would contribute to what we are dealing with would be. I am aware, whilst agreeing with the tone and temper of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, there is no section of the House which can get any satisfaction out of it. Whether it is viewed from the standpoint of finance or the burden to the country or to the insured persons who contribute, certainly they cannot

  1383
  be satisfied. But the most terrible side of the statement, and one which this House would do well to contemplate is that the most optimistic statement the right hon. Gentleman can make, the only consolation he can give us, with all the advisers and experts at his disposal, is that he cannot contemplate anything better than 1,500,000 unemployed for the next 15 months. It is very difficult for this House to put itself in a position even to gauge exactly what that means. The figures at the moment are nearly 2,000,000. It is true to say that at least 30 or 40 per cent. of that 2,000,000 men and women have already exhausted their first period of unemployment benefit, in addition to which their savings have gone and their trade union benefit is exhausted. That is their position and the best we can hope from all the expert advice is at least another 15 months for 1,500,000. Whatever Debates there may be on economic or political subjects which may excite or interest this House, there is nothing that ought to interest us and bring home to us the awful tragedy of our people more than the statement we have heard.
  The right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that the unfortunate dispute now taking place would not be extended. I want to say no word, and I hope no one will say a word which will widen the breach, because I do not believe the best way to settle a dispute is to widen it. I am not one of those who believe that the easiest way to get over a difficulty is to make it more difficult, and therefore I hope nothing will be said in this Debate to render the task of those who are striving for an honourable peace more difficult. But having said that, I do ask the House to fully understand how, if the dispute continues, or even if it does unfortunately develop, that under this Bill with which we are now dealing—and this Bill is an extension of an existing Act—we are not only doing an injustice, but we are depriving hundreds of thousands of people of what they believe to be their legitimate benefit. I want the right hon. Gentleman to follow me. Forget, if you can, the merits of the dispute on either side. Forget, if you like, whether the employers are to blame or the workers. Leave that entirely out; but remember that at this moment there are many
  1384
  thousands who are thrown out of work in consequence of the dispute and who are not parties to it. Whoever is to blame for it, they are not to blame. I do not care which side you take on the merits of the dispute, but please remember there are many thousands who are already thrown out of work and who are no parties to this dispute, but who are out of work because of the dispute, and if the lock-out notices are to have effect a week from to-day, you will find that there are in this situation at least 600,000 people who are not direct parties to the dispute. The unfortunate part of the Act is this, that it has been held that if the dispute is in a particular department which is affected, that the men and women who are not parties to the dispute are not to receive the benefit of Unemployment Insurance, which means that in the dispute now taking place all those people who are not parties to it, but by the particular nature of things are in the same department, are automatically thrown out of work and deprived, not only of the benefits of this Act, but of the benefits to which they have contributed and paid for. My right hon. Friend said on the last occasion he dealt with this subject, "Will you join with us in finding some formula to deal with it?"
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I said if any representative body of employers and workers got together and devised a plan which I shall find workable, I would consider it.
  Mr. THOMAS: That shows the difficulty of the situation. You are compulsorily insured, whether you like it or not, and you say to the employer: "You must pay for this employé," and the employer and employé both having paid, neither of them being parties to the dispute, but because of this interpretation of the Act, immediately the man becomes entitled to the benefit he thought he was paying for, you deprive him of it. All I can say is that my right hon. Friend did leave the impression on many of us that he recognised the difficulty and was anxious to find a remedy for it, and to find words to meet it. But the point I am making is, first, the particular connection and application of this matter to the unfortunate dispute now pending and which creates a tremendous injustice to hundreds of thousands of people. By

  1385
  the amending Bill with which we are dealing it is not remedied in the least. I put it to my right hon. Friend that that must create a serious state of affairs, for this reason. The men I am now dealing with, hundreds of thousands of them, have been subjected within the last six months to a heavy reduction in wages. Large numbers, again, have been on short time, and you may take it as an absolute fact that the resources of the homes are very limited. Now, when you throw these men, as they will be thrown, out of work and then deprive them absolutely of their benefit, what is the alternative? The alternative is immediately to go on to the Poor Law. There is nothing which irritates our people, there is nothing which demoralises our people more, and there is nothing our workers resent more than pauper relief, especially when, as I have indicated, and as has been admitted here, they are being driven to that resource because you deprive them of the very thing to which they are entitled. That is not only a serious state of affairs, but one that should immediately be remedied.
  But, again, in this same Bill, in another form, you are dealing with juveniles in the same way. My right hon. Friend says, "Please remember that we are preventing young boys receiving this benefit when, as a matter of fact, they are under the guardianship of their parents." Yes, that is true and no one wants to have any unemployment insurance benefit paid in such a way that it would be a direct temptation not to work. We admit the point. We do not want that at all. But do not let the House assume that the phrase the right hon. Gentleman has uttered gets over the difficulty, because what he has actually done is this: Please remember when you talk about stopping benefit that you are stopping something for which the people are paying; you do not put any limitation so far as age is concerned in the payment, but having compelled people to pay you deprive them of the benefit. Let me give you a case. Under the Circular No. 505c, supposing a young man is single and living with his parents, you say he is not to be entitled to benefit although, mark you, he has paid.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Or may not have paid.
  Mr. THOMAS: You may take the case in which he does pay first. What happens? The Circular says:
  "Benefit for the further period of six weeks should not be recommended in the case of a juvenile living with his or her parents or other relatives or who is assisted or may reasonably expect to be assisted during unemployment by his parents or other relatives."
  Let me first deal with the point you make that you have taken the necessary steps to prevent single men living with their parents receiving the benefit. It is true you have done that, but you have done two injustices by it. In the Act of Parliament you made no restriction upon those paying into the fund. Supposing there is a father, and supposing in the home there are three brothers, all working and all single but all unemployed, and the father out of work as well. Under these instructions, you can deprive the whole of these boys of the benefit, although the father is himself out of work and unable to discharge his responsibility. I ask is that fair? That is exactly what this Circular not only has done but was intended to do, because the definition of "parents" in this Bill only means parents if they were in a position to do it. As a matter of fact, in practice the parents can themselves be out of work and yet by this Circular you have prevented the workmen having unemployed benefit.
  5.0 P.M.
  Generally speaking, of course, we shall not vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. We will not vote against it because, with 1,900,000 already out of work—people for whom, unfortunately, this sum of money is the only source of income—we not only feel that we cannot vote against it, but we feel that no Member of this House ought to vote against it. But, in saying that, we re-affirm our protest against this method of dealing with the unemployed. Doles, unemployment grants or unemployment insurance is not the solution. No one can recognise that more than those who sit upon these benches. We had an illustration of the Government schemes this afternoon in the Ministry of Transport sanctioning a road scheme. The clear intention of that was not for the purpose of giving the contractor the benefit of a contract, but to provide work for the unemployed. In the case stated this afternoon, of which more will be heard, that certainly has not been fulfilled. I am trying to apply common

  1387
  sense to the situation. It may be I am not succeeding, but I cannot help that. In any case, I am not putting it unfairly when I say that these schemes were propounded with the clear intention of providing work for unemployed people. If it had been a business proposition, it would not have been put forward in the way it was. It was meant to deal with an emergency in a special way. All I have to say, in conclusion, is that I do ask the House to again seriously consider the horrible state of affairs as outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. Here is the summer and another winter and another fifteen months, all of which we can visualise, all of which we can picture, of misery and suffering for these people. That, in itself, ought to be the best indication of the gravity of the situation, and should bring home to us that this problem of unemployment cannot be solved by even the change from this bench to the Treasury Bench. I am not so foolish as to believe that. I neither say it inside this House nor outside. It cannot be changed by a mere change of the party sitting on that bench or on this. It cannot be changed by a policy merely adaptable to our own country. It is far deeper, far greater than that. It is an international problem, affecting, not alone this country, but the world as a whole, and if any proof of that be needed, let us take the position of America at this moment. America possesses 34 per cent. of the coal of the world, is a credit country throughout the world, with the dollar at a premium everywhere. It is almost a self-supporting country. All the factors tend to show that America ought to be the best place in the world at the present moment, but there are nearly 6,000,000 unemployed, due obviously to the fact that America wants customers just as we want customers. Therefore, when I say that we cannot alter it by merely transferring from one bench to the other, what I also mean is that we have got to change the policy. In other words, we still hold Versailles responsible for much of the unemployment. That is why we believe that the only—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I had better intervene in time, because to try to introduce a discussion on foreign affairs would be quite improper.
  Mr. THOMAS: I not only accept your ruling, but I was attempting not to be called to order for merely suggesting that a change from this side to that would make the difference. I can only say that we give our support to the Second Reading of the Bill, and we hope, in the Committee stage, that some of the injustices I have already pointed out will be rectified. Above all, we recognise, with the right hon. Gentleman, that merely the establishing of unemployment insurance or doles is not a real cure for the great problem.
  Mr. A. HOPKINS0N: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  I do not think it is necessary to deal with what the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has said in his speech. It is difficult indeed to know what his object was in making that speech. We had a long portrayal of the sufferings of the working classes, but I should like to ask what earthly use it is to tell the House again and again that these unfortunate men who are out of work are suffering from grave privations. Indeed, every Member of the House knows perfectly well that they are suffering in this way without being told by the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues. I believe, too, that every Member of the House would be glad to do everything he could in any way to help these unfortunate men. It is simply wasting the time of the House to endeavour to raise feeling by describing the deprivations of the unemployed again and again.
  In essence, this Bill does what the right hon. Member and his colleagues have been recommending the whole time. The policy of the Labour party in dealing with unemployment is this: They say, "In the course of the European War, we spent some £12,000,000,000, involving us in a debt of some £8,000,000,000, and therefore it is perfectly absurd to pretend that having spent £12,000,000,000 we cannot spend, say, another £1,000,000,000 in relieving unemployment in this country, in one way or another." When that point of view of hon. Members of the Labour party is contested, they say, "At any rate, let us borrow money to relieve the sufferings of the unemployed." And that is exactly what the right hon. Gentle-

  1389
  man is doing. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to remember that this is not the first time we have heard these arguments in the House, and I wish to protest against what may be described in mathematical language as the system of legislation by "infinite series." May I be allowed to quote what I said on No. 3 of this infinite series, in June, last year? We saw at once that each Unemployment Act, as it was passed, was not a complete thing in itself, but one of a series which would continue year by year. The right hon. Gentleman said that anybody could criticise after the event. If I may do so, I would like to remind him that some of us who opposed his previous Bill prophesied before the event. On the Third Reading of that same Bill, to which I have referred, last June, I said:
  "I hope the House will kick this Bill through into the other place as quickly as possible. We want it kicked there so that there will be room for the next Bill on the subject. As far as I can guess, on the information at present available, we shall have about two more of these Unemployment Insurance Bills before the repeal comes about."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1921; col. 2023, Vol. 143.]
  That is real prophecy. If the right hon. Gentleman requires something further, we objected to these borrowing powers because we knew it was inevitable that the right hon. Gentleman would ask for more in the autumn—which he did—and more again in the spring of this year—which he is doing now. I say it is perfectly useless to go on legislating on these lines, for all series, whether finite or infinite, do have a sum in the end, and the unfortunate taxpayers and people of this country will have to meet the sum whatevery Government happens to be in power when the crash comes. Legislation of this kind, which pretends to deal with the unemployment problem, does not deal with the problem at all. It merely deals with a mitigation of the painful symptoms. Like so many quack remedies, it even, in my opinion, adds to the gravity of the disease. It adds to the gravity of the disease in two ways. In the first place, it takes money out of industry, and taking money out of industry, no matter how hon. Members may argue, does inevitably lead to an increase of unemployment. In the second place—and I hope hon. Members of the Labour party will not accuse me of saying what is cruel or unjust—it prevents the competition
  1390
  of the man who is out of work against the man who is in work. On the other hand, it may be said by some that the prevention of such competition will be for the good of the man. A little thought will convince hon. Members that it is not good, in the long run, that such competition should not exist.
  Consider what it is that causes a man to be unemployed. As far as in me lies I do endeavour to see the problem as a whole, without any desire to further any personal end. Although my view may not appeal to the Labour party, it is, at any rate, a very honest conviction, made with the intention of helping to solve the problem. I am sure that hon. Members of the Labour party will give me credit for that. A man is unemployed for one overriding reason and one reason only; that is that the demand for the product of his labour is insufficient to pay the wage which he demads or which he is obliged to demand under trade union rules. I think we may say that in theory there is a demand for every product of industry at a price. That is to say, if the price can be reduced low enough, there is always to be found a customer for the product somewhere in the world. As the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) says, that may result in a man working a full week and then going home with a wage of practically nothing. That, of course, is the reductio ad absurdum. But I want to impress upon hon. Members why it is that you can only get out of an unemployment crisis in one way—that is to say, the demand for the product of industry must become an effective demand. It can become an effective demand in two ways; either the cost of production in that particular industry may be reduced to such an extent that purchasers who hitherto were frightened off buying by the high price become practical competitors in the market and buy; and the other is that the demand may increase to such an amount that they are willing to pay the existing price. I hope I have made it clear to hon. Members that the argument is that what we need to do is to make the demand for the products of our labour an effective demand instead of an ineffective demand, as it is at present. The Opposition suggests that we should frame our foreign policy in such a way that the foreign demand may become effective, in other words, that we should refrain from depressing the ex-

  1391
  change rates of great customers like Germany by any artificial measures such as those contained in the Versailles Treaty. I agree. I think we are adding immensely to the acuteness of the unemployment problem by insisting upon reparations. We can gain our foreign markets again, we can gain even the German market if the true cost of production in England can be got down to a figure which will make such a demand effective, that is, if the cost of production in England is made less than the cost of production in Germany. If this is so, it will not matter what the exchange rate between the two countries may be, trade will flow to our advantage.
  Let me return to the immediate subject of the Bill. I have quoted one or two prophecies that I made on the Floor of the House nearly a year ago, and I am sorry I cannot avoid making a further quotation from what I said on that occasion. In the Act which was brought forward in March, 1921, the actuarial situation was calculated on the basis of an average of 1,000,000 unemployed per week up to July of this year. In June of last year that basis had been changed to an average of 1,250,000 unemployed per week. The Minister of Labour, when asked what was the reason for taking one and a quarter millions as the average number of unemployed for the year ending in July of this year, said that he had referred it to the Government actuary. On further inquiry we got from him the statement that what he had referred to the Government actuary was not an actuarial problem at all, but merely a problem in simple arithmetic. The right hon. Gentleman in effect said to the actuary this: "There is going to be an average of 1¼ million persons unemployed between now and July of next year," and having, by fixing that basis, done the whole of the actuarial work concerned, he asked the Government actuary to calculate what borrowing power would be necessary and what premiums would be required, a calculation which I believe any Board school child of the age of 13 could make quite easily if he had paper and pencil. It certainly was not necessary to get an able gentleman like the Government actuary to work out such a calculation, a calculation based upon a begging of the question by the Minister
  1392
  of Labour. When that basis was fixed, we who opposed the right hon. Gentleman criticised it as severely as we could. Here is what I said on the Committee stage of that Bill:
  "The million and a quarter estimated for is certainly nothing more nor less than a guess, and from all the signs of the times an extraordinarily bad guess, too. The whole thing is based on guesses, which have always been bad guesses, upon anticipations which have never been fulfilled. This is going to run him into demanding continual and increasing borrowing powers. We objected to these borrowing powers being asked for, and we object to it still, because we know it is inevitable that the right hon. Gentleman will ask for more in the autumn, and for more again in the spring of next year."
  That is our objection to this Bill—that we do not know where this business is to stop. The right hon. Gentleman comes this time and wants further borrowing power. We do not know that he will not come to us again in about three or four months' time with another amending Bill, wanting still further borrowing powers in order to pay still higher benefits. It may be said that it is very easy to bring destructive criticism against a Measure of this sort, and I admit that that is an accusation which the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to make. My trouble in combating a criticism of that sort is that the people of this country and the Members of this House have been reduced to a state of emotional sloppiness which baffles description. Starting from about 1906, by proposing a policy which I think we may properly term the policy of 9d. for 4d., the Prime Minister has set himself to work, like all demagogues in history, to produce a state of emotional sloppiness so that he could get people to give him the necessary votes for a continuance of that policy and an increase of it as time went on. I congratulate the Minister for Labour above all his colleagues. He has really understood the Prime Minister's policy to the fullest extent and has done his level best to carry it out. In this particular instance what he has done is this: Up to the present he has passed, I think, four Measures, and is about to pass a fifth, and presumably, if he remains in Office, he will pass three or four more, and all these Measures are devoted to the fulfilment of a remarkable piece of policy originally designed by the Prime Minister.
  That policy is this: "Let us give the people from the cradle to the grave

  1393
  various forms of outdoor poor relief, and let us call that outdoor poor relief by another name, so that no man or woman or child may have any shame whatsoever in demanding it as a right." What is this Unemployment Insurance Benefit, so-called, but Poor Law relief, and nothing else? It has been argued by Members of the Labour party that Poor Law relief is a non-contributory thing. The only fault I find with that argument is that it is totally untrue. Every man who receives outdoor relief is contributing, even during the period of relief, through the rates which he pays upon the habitation he occupies. It is, therefore, perfectly absurd to come to us here and to say that there is any difference between this contributory Insurance Scheme and Poor Law relief. They are exactly the same thing. In each case the recipient is contributing or has contributed a portion of the premium. If hon. Members will contemplate the ultimate state of affairs which will arise, they must agree that it is quite time we called a halt. We have already, I understand from the calculations of a very competent man, got more than 50 per cent. of the population in receipt of doles of one sort or another. We are rapidly approaching that Utopia of the Prime Minister—that Utopia in which every child from its cradle to its grave will be provided for at the expense of someone else.
  The solution of the problem is, like all solutions of all difficulties, a very unpleasant and difficult thing. The solution is outdoor relief, and nothing else, but outdoor relief, called by its proper name and bearing its full stigma. Men and women being what they are—we Members of this House are very much of the same temper—as long as they can draw money from the taxpayers, which is from the pockets of their neighbours, without any stigma upon them, will continue to draw it. In two connections this policy is wrong. In the first place, it takes away the money, the capital, which would be the source of employment and of fresh wealth production. In the second place, it takes away the stigma which attaches to Poor law relief, by what is a gross piece of pretence, inasmuch as it is really giving Poor Law relief, and nothing else. I ask the House, therefore, seriously to consider whether it is not time that we put an end to this 9d. for 4d. policy which has been the curse of the country
  1394
  for so long. It is degrading, or endeavouring to degrade the whole character of our fellow-citizens, and in company with many other observers I must say it is a matter of extreme surprise and immense satisfaction to find how little effect the Prime Minister's policy has had on the men and women of to-day. I say that for this reason: while the Government policy has in every way hampered the conduct of industry by its interference, and has abstracted from industry that capital which should be a source of constant reproduction of capital and new wealth, while it has hampered in every possible way a recovery of the nation, all the time outside this House men of the working classes have been facing this difficulty, employers have been facing it, and they have been working together, as far as they can, with a bit of "give" here and a bit of "take" there, in sympathy and in friendship, to pull the country out of the appalling position that Government policy has landed it in.
  In my own trade reduction after reduction of wages has taken place. There has been hardly a murmur from the men. I know that skilled engineers throughout the country (that is those who are lucky enough to be in work now) are passing through a time of very great privation. But when I go to my men and tell them, "We cannot raise wages for the present," they turn to me always and say, "Well, taking it on the whole we consider that we are very lucky to be in work at all." That is the spirit which throughout the country is pulling us through in spite of what the politicians and the Government say. I think that our outlook, as far as unemployment is concerned, is very much brighter than it has been since the War. For three years we saw the seriousness of this matter accumulating, and we saw the frantic endeavours of the Government, by one device and another, to maintain the standard of living above what the nation could afford. As long as the standard of living was above what the economic situation would allow, I and others with me took an intensely pessimistic view of the future of industry. But now the scene has changed altogether.
  The greatest industry, the foundation industry of the country, is at last on an economic basis. The unfortunate colliers of this country are receiving wages

  1395
  equivalent to a standard of living which on the average is very much below the standard of living in 1914. That being so, we know that that great industry is on an economic basis at last. But there is some possibility now of building up a true prosperity instead of the false prosperity of 18 months ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "By the starvation of the people!"] That interruption is typical of the Labour Benches from which it emanates. May I explain to the hon. Members who interrupted that not only have I mingled my blood with that of the colliers in the trenches, but my sweat with theirs at the coal-face for many years? Therefore, when hon. Members suggest that I have no feeling with these men, my comrades in war and in peace, they are suggesting what is not true and what is unworthy of any hon. Member of this House. I take a very optimistic view at the present time. Unhappily, the sufferings of the working classes have not reached their worst point yet. Accumulations of savings, which were made, to a very large extent, in spite of all the accusations of extravagance we have heard, have made it very much better for the workers of the North than anyone would have anticipated up to now. But those savings are exhausted and the immediate prospect before the worker is one of very great privation. At any rate, he has the satisfaction of knowing that all the while, very largely as a result of the very poor standard of living at the present time, prosperity and a better standard of living are becoming nearer and nearer and more and more possible.
  May I say one word as to what the employers have done in this connection? It is not the custom for employers to say much about what they are doing, and those who have listened to the representatives of employers of labour in this House are apt to get a very wrong impression of what is going on in the industries of the country outside. Living as I do in a manufacturing district, I know that many employers are devoting at the present time and have devoted during the last 12 months every effort of mind to render the situation a little better for those whom they have the honour to employ; and they have been successful. The employers who have given up a little to help their men, and the men who have
  1396
  faced this appalling situation with such bravery and patience, have between them, not only wiped out much of the bad effect of Government legislation, but have rendered it possible to look forward, in the course perhap6 of two or three years, to a better and happier life for the workers of this country.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I would first like to congratulate the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) on the very clear and lucid speech he has delivered. He has dealt with this subject in a sincere manner and I believe he is just as much interested as any hon. Member who supports the Bill in putting an end to this period of unemployment which everyone deplores. A country cannot be happy unless everyone can get work of some sort to do, and even a man who is born with a considerable income finds himself unhappy unless he has some work to do. It is to the benefit of a country that there should be plenty of work at remunerative rates for everyone who wishes to do it. That does not mean that everybody desires work. There are, unfortunately, a considerable number of men and women—and I am not now alluding to any particular class—who, if they can exist without work, will do so. The position in which the country is at the present time seems to be the same as the position in which the country was in 1832 when, following upon the period of the Napoleonic wars, there came a considerable period of depression and unemployment. This resulted in doles, not in the form which the Minister puts forward, but doles in the form of outdoor relief. The country got into such a state and the cost to the ratepayers was so great that the Poor Law of 1832 was brought into operation. It is very unfortunate that some hardship must be inflicted in dealing with this matter, but what we want to do is to endeavour to incite men and women to work, with the knowledge that if they do not work they will find it extremely difficult to keep body and soul together. You have to inculcate that into a great number of people, and once you start these allowances—allowances which are by no manner of means small—you at once create a class of people who would far sooner receive doles of this sort than work. There is no denying that. You also create a class who come forward and,

  1397
  while in receipt of a very considerable sum of money every week, pretend they are unemployed, and in many cases extract from the pockets of the unfortunate taxpayer doles in this form. The only thing one can do in such circumstances is to make oneself very disagreeable. It is the only way. If, when the right hon. Gentleman started with the chief Measure about a year and a half ago, his plan had been successful, if we had tided over that year and a half without the necessity of continuing this system, there might be something to be said for the proposal. Both the hon. Member for Mossley and myself, however, a year and a half ago, said that, at the end of that period, as certainly as we were standing here, another Bill would have to be introduced. I do not claim that I foretold the present industrial position, but what I did was to say that the number of people out of employment would increase as long as these doles were given. We must make up our minds to that fact. We must get back to the old system which operated in 1832 if we want to bring the country back to anything like a state of prosperity. We are never going to create employment by Acts of Parliament or by speeches or by any of the various methods in which the Prime Minister has indulged for the last three or four years. In my election address to the City of London in 1918 I ventured to say we were face to face with a very troublous time, and the only way to meet it was by hard work and economy. That produced a certain amount of criticism from my opponents of the Radical party, who asked me if I had nothing better to say than that, and I replied that I had not. Everyone knows that the Prime Minister had all sorts of ideas about a new world. He thought the old world would never come back again, that all unemployment would be stopped, and all misery finished. The proper thing to have done was to have recognised that the War had put us back by at least a century, and instead of imagining that we were going to be better off, we should have realised that we would have to do everything we could in order to ensure that we were as well off as before the War. The whole plan was misconceived. Unfortunately the Prime Minister succeeded in deluding the people.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be getting on the verge of disorder.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was only pointing out that the policy which led you up to these doles was wrong, but I will not pursue that point. The proper course for the Government now, is certainly not to bring in a Bill of this sort. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do in June, 1923? I am not going to prophesy that there will be greater unemployment then than now. I hope not, and I am inclined to think it is impossible that there should be, but there will be unemployment as long as the right hon. Gentleman introduces Bills of this sort, and eventually the situation will have to be faced. The right hon. Gentleman will have to be unpopular; he will have to say to people: "If you have not got work, all you can do is to go into the workhouse. Not outdoor relief, but into the workhouse." That is all there is for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
  Mr. WIGNALL: The old line.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is a serious matter. We have to look into this question seriously. We are not here on the election platform. We are here to talk sensibly, and I have said what the right hon. Gentleman will be compelled to do eventually.
  Mr. SWAN: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that it will cost more to keep one person in the workhouse than it is proposed to grant a person under this Act?
  Sir F. BANBURY: The moment we say that, the people will find work for themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Well, look at the engineers. They can get work now, but they do not choose to take it.
  Mr. SWAN: Nonsense.
  Sir F. BANBURY: All that sort of thing would stop if the course which I suggest were taken. It all comes back to what I said just now, that the only way to make this country prosperous is by hard work and economy. We cannot expect to have the high wages and the short hours which prevailed during the War. People have got to put their backs into work and to wipe away all these ridiculous trade union rules, and let every man do his best. Unless that is done

  1399
  there will be no prosperity. The only way to judge of the future is by the past. All this sort of thing has been tried over and over again from the days of Athens and Rome down to the period after the Napoleonic wars, about a century ago. Those are my opinions, and I am certain they are shared by a great number of people who, at the same time, consider them rather unpopular, and on the whole would rather not express them, though agreeing with them. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question about the Bill. I notice in Clause 1 the words:
  "Where a person entitled to benefit … has and has had living with him as his wife any female person."
  Is that in the old Act? I dare say it was in the old Act, but it is rather extraordinary that we should provide for a man who "has had living with him as his wife any female person." It seems to me to be a provision of a slightly immoral character, and one which I should not have thought likely to secure the approval of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have carried forward here the provisions, generally, for dealing with unemployed workers, with the exception of the small addition of the closing lines of the Sub-section.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then this inducement to immorality was in the previous Act.
  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: May I ask, was there not an alteration made in regard to that particular point by the introduction of the words "or housekeepers"?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I shall not debate it. I hope the country will see this, that while these proposals may tide over an emergency they will not heal the sore. It will be necessary, sooner or later, to take steps which must be unpleasant to a great number of the people who are unfortunately suffering, but the longer we put it off the worse it will be, and the sooner the Government make up their minds to do the unpopular thing, the better it will be for the country and for everybody.
  Mr. G. BARNES: The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), who moved this Amendment, and the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F.
  1400
  Banbury), who seconded it, may not unfairly be described, I think, as "financial diehards," and I think my right hon. Friend was at all events bowled out of his own ground by the intervention of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan), who told him that the cost of maintenance of a person in the workhouse was more than the cost to the State under this Bill, and therefore disposed of that particular argument. I am very glad to know that both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have great sympathy with the unemployed, and I welcome their statement that they are as much concerned about workmen getting work as any Member of the House. The hon. Member for Mossley is always interesting, always instructive, and sometimes amusing, although I should think he scarcely intends that, and he was in his usual form this afternoon; but I cannot help thinking that he carried his argument just a little too far even from his own point of view. He is a whole-hogger, and he moved, therefore, the rejection of this Bill, and so far as I can understand him, he moved it on the ground that in order to get work, which we all agree is what we want rather than doles or anything of that kind, you must have the standard of living depressed. His argument is that you must bring down wages until such time as the products of those wages are at such a price as to attract customers, and, secondly, you must do nothing for the unemployed man except to offer him the cold comfort of the Poor Law. I think that is the main argument underlying the hon. Member's speech. It seemed to me that that carried him a little further than he intended, because what follows? If we depress the standard of living below a certain point and offer nothing except the Poor Law, which the most self-respecting of these people will not have, cannot the hon. Member see that we are depressing the individuals' strength to such a point that what is gained on the swings is lost on the roundabouts? It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman, in sticking to his own corner, which is far more suitable to the beginning of the eighteenth century than now, is carrying himself a good deal further than I am sure his kindly nature would like him to go.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman carry his own argument to its logical conclusion, which is that if a man

  1401
  has seven or eight meals a day, and big meals at that, he will produce much more than if he only has two?
  Mr. BARNES: That is another illustration of the extraordinary mind of the hon. Member. I would remind him that there is moderation in all things. What we want is the greatest production with the greatest possible advantage both to the man himself and to the community, and I suggest that the whole-hog theory of my hon. Friend will not give him that result. I do not, however, rest my case upon arguments and theories. As the hon. Member knows, those ideas of his were tried last century, and failed. During the early days of the last century we had the most miserable poverty we have ever had, poverty which has been described as the most acute poverty, but let me give another illustration. If it were true that low wages were the best means of getting large industries and successful industries, how is it that the low wages of the last century were in the least prosperous trades and the high wages in the most prosperous industries? Take the agricultural industry. Everybody agrees that the agricultural labour was starved by a wage which ultimately produced a man physically and mentally starved, and therefore with low efficiency.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On the contrary, the best men in the police and the Guards came from the agricultural community.
  Mr. BARNES: In Scotland you will find that the Army and the Police Forces were largely recruited from the agricultural labourers, but that is not the case with regard to England to anything like the same extent, and the reason is that the agricultural labourer in England was getting 9s. or 10s. per week, and was therefore reduced to a man little worth more than that, while the agricultural labourer in the North has always had his £1 a week, and therefore is a much better man physically and in every way. Let us complete this argument. Let me remind the hon. Member for Mossley that the industries in which labour was well paid found markets all over the world. Right up to the War, and even after, the shipbuilding industry of this country was one of the most prosperous, and, as he knows, not only now but for the last generation the workers in the shipbuilding industry have been the most strongly
  1402
  organised, demanding and obtaining the highest wages possibly of any body of workmen in this country, and, as a consequence of those wages increasing their efficiency, they have built up an industry which has been the marvel and the envy of other people. I might cite the cotton industry, which is more or less the same. The cotton industry for generations has been well organised. Some 95 per cent. at any time in the last 20 or 30 years of the men in the cotton industry have been in their unions, and what has been the result? You have found that trade organised in such a way that the employers and the men met together, that common sense on both sides came on top, and that they conducted the industry on the whole with less stoppages than other industries have suffered. Again, they have arranged their industry in such a way as to be most efficient, and therefore their goods have gone all over the world. Therefore I say to my hon. Friend that in putting these old-fashioned arguments, which, after all, come from old-fashioned economists, he is putting something which will not stand the test of experience. What has been going on in the last few years? The hon. Member has talked about the Insurance Acts in terms of derision, but what should we have done without the Insurance Acts? I suggest to my hon. Friend that, whatever the financial aspects of the case may be, the imponderable results of the benefits from the Insurance Acts are incalculable, and they have saved this country from anarchy during the last few years. For these reasons, I do not at all accept my hon. Friend's arguments in favour of rejecting this Bill.
  I come to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). In opening, he commented upon the fact that the Minister had said there was going to be an average of a million and a half of people unemployed as between now and next June twelvemonths, and he commented upon that as being one of the most grave statements he had heard made from that Bench. He also commented upon the distress and upon the fact that the people's resources are getting low. He said they have pawned their things and are therefore not in a position to stand the unemployment strain during the next 15 months as well as they have stood it during the last 15 months. I think he was quite right

  1403
  in calling attention to that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley stated that it was unnecessary to do so, because he felt sure that every Member agreed with what the right hon. Member for Derby had said. I cannot believe however, that the average Member of this House realises to the full the terrible tragedy of this unemployment problem to those who have got to go through it, and when I say those who have got to go through it, I do not mean only these 1,500,000 men. I do not remember a time when the great mass of those who were unemployed have been better looked after than they are now, but I wish to call attention to one section of the community not covered by this Bill, a section which is suffering more acutely than any other section of the community. I mean those who are just above the line of insurance. I mean the men who were getting, perhaps, £300 or £400 a year quite recently. There are thousands of those men now who find that the industries in which they were engaged have collapsed, with the result that they are not in a position to get anything else to do. They are the class of people who, even if they had to starve, would not accept Poor Law relief. They find it very undignified to stand in a line expecting a dole, to which they are not entitled even if they did, by the way. I know some of these men myself. Some of them are men with families, and in order to get along at all they have pawned their effects, they have borrowed money from their friends, they have, in fact, mortgaged their enterprise for the next two or three years, whatever may happen, and I believe that those men are the most acute sufferers at the present time, and likely to be in the next few months. Therefore, while endorsing the proposals made with regard to the great mass of the unemployed, I should be glad if, either in this Bill or some future Bill, some provision could be made for those people. I endorse what has been said by the right hon. Member for Derby that no more grave statement could be made from the Front Bench in this House than the statement that, after all the unemployment we have gone through in the last year and a half, we should still have to look forward to a million and a half of workmen being out of work on an average for the next 15 months.
  1404
  6.0 P.M.
  I want to say a word about another statement made by the Minister of Labour, in regard to insurance by industry. I understood him to say that there was little prospect of anything being done in the way of getting forward with that particular branch of the question for a long time to come—he did not know how long. I attach more importance to that particular aspect of the matter than to any other, because I believe that only in proportion as you can encourage those in industry, by which I mean employers and employed alike, to develop what might be called a corporate pride in their industry, only when you can get them to realise that you will never get the best out of a man unless provision is made for him getting decent security all his life, will you get them to realise the extreme importance of carrying on their industry in such a way that the State will not be burdened by these large numbers of people out of employment in times of trade depression. Therefore I regret that the Minister of Labour has taken up the attitude, that until this money that is now owing to the State can be liquidated, no further step can be taken to get on with this insurance by industry, and I submit to him, that even if it costs the State a little more money to expedite the getting on with these schemes of insurance by industry, I think it would pay the State, having regard to all the facts in the situation. I do not think insurance by industry is in any way incompatible with the present Bill, or any insurance Bill. Provision is made, at all events, by one Clause of the Bill that that can be applied when the time comes. What is necessary at the present time is for workers and employers to get well organised, so that each can speak for their respective side, and, when that is done, get together and try to develop industries, look forward a little as to what is likely to happen, and get on with their industries, so as to avoid unemployment, so far as it is possible to avoid it. There are two matters which were referred to by the right hon. Member for Derby with which I was not in agreement. For instance, he made a great point about the young man deprived of benefit, and considered that that man is suffering an injustice. I do not see any injustice about it.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Not if there are three or four in the same house?
  Mr. BARNES: That is an exception, and there is nothing more alluring to some than to find an exception trotted out as if it applied to the whole mass. There will be exceptional cases of hardship even there, but let us get on commonsense lines. The extension of this benefit was intended to apply to a man who is married and has a family, and therefore 5s. additional was given for the wife and 1s. for the child. That was the basis of the Act so far as I understand it. The Act was not intended to apply to the young man, and if it be necessary to make a provision, the young man getting 15s. a week—many of them live at home, and therefore get shelter and food, sometimes for nothing—is not the extreme case that some would make out. The right hon. Member for Derby made a point with regard to the non-reaping of benefit by the men now involved in the lock-out. After all, those men voted on the question, as I understand, and therefore they are affected by the dispute.
  I am glad that this Bill has been brought in, and I think that, on the whole, the Minister of Labour may be congratulated upon having weathered an exceptional storm so far, and upon having brought in a proposal which has the appearance and promise of carrying us through an exceptional period again up to the middle of next year. There is no other Government that has ever done anything like that. I do not say it is enough, or too much, but all I say is that this Bill does reflect a growing volume of social consciousness in this country. We are not living in times when each man's hand is against the other's, but we are beginning to live in a time when it is recognised that the community must have regard, and is having regard, for the poorest amongst us. It is only by that means, and an extension of that means, that we can pick labour up from the low ground of competitive struggle and place it on the higher ground of freedom and justice.
  Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I do not suppose that the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill is to be taken very seriously. It rather indicates a demonstration, and provides an opportunity for those prophecies of the fulfilment of disaster, which gives so
  1406
  much satisfaction to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). My right hon. Friend took some little credit to himself for the correctness of his prophecy, but I cannot recall to mind, since I have been a Member of this House, any piece of legislation which he did not prophesy would be a failure, if not a disaster. One who always does that, must surely be right sometimes. The mover and seconder of the Amendment did not, of course, offer any alternative, and I was not surprised. My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) interrupted the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) to ask what his remedy was, and I had expected he would himself have had one ready for our consideration; but it appeared that all he could suggest was that he would bring down the cost of production when, as he thought, trade would flow in sufficient amount to make it unnecessary to have an Unemployment Insurance Act. I quite agree that you must go on reducing costs when you are in competition to such a point as will enable you to compete successfully with others; but I cannot accept the view that at this moment, if you reduce costs to any figure you like, you can get sufficient trade for the whole population of this country. Upon that point, I would like to say, that while it is undoubtedly a fallacy to suppose that low wages necessarily mean low costs, it is equally a fallacy to maintain that the higher the wages the lower the costs, as is sometimes assumed. What matters is not the rate of wages, but the actual cost of the particular article you are making. That is quite compatible with high wages, but it depends upon a great many other things besides wages.
  The Minister of Labour in eulogising—and, I think, justly eulogising—the effects of the Insurance Acts, said that they had prevented thousands of people from making application to the guardians. I wish, very much, I could whole-heartedly endorse that observation, but 1 am afraid it is getting less and less true, and, indeed, it is bound to be so, because nobody pretends that 15s., or £1 a week to a married man, is sufficient to keep him. He must have some income from some other source. That source may have been his savings, but, as his savings become exhausted, he has to look elsewhere, and the result is that you find

  1407
  to-day thousands and thousands of people, who never thought they would have to go to the guardians for relief, who are in receipt of unemployment benefit, but who are also receiving relief from the guardians. That, to my mind, is the terrible tragedy of the situation to-day. It is not that people are starving. At any rate, in my part of the country I have made careful inquiry, and, although one could hardly exaggerate the distress which many people are suffering, yet there is no actual starvation; but there is a degeneration being created in the moral standard of our people, which is going to leave its trace upon them long after this temporary state of things is past. That, to my mind, is a dreadful thing. People who thought they would perish rather than ever go to the guardians for relief are finding everybody is doing it. They themselves resist for a long time, and then they go, and it is unfortunately true, that having once begun on a course of that kind, after a time the repulsion, the loathing, the humiliation which they experience at first, disappears, and they get to accept as an ordinary incident in their lives the receipt of relief from the guardians.
  We are beginning to get a sort of interchangeability between unemployment insurance benefit and relief from the guardians. You have a Clause in this Bill repeating a former Clause, that account has to be taken by the guardians of the amount which is being received in unemployment benefit. What is the result of that? The right hon. Member for Derby spoke of a number of people who were likely to be thrown out of employment if the lockout took effect, and he said that many of them were working short time. Why, there are many people who are working short time to-day who are actually worse off than they would be if they were not at work at all. I have had them complain bitterly to me of that very fact. If, therefore, these people are not able to obtain unemployment benefit, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is not going to be the disaster from the physical point of view, of which he spoke. It does not mean that they are going to be 15s. or £1 a week worse off, but it simply means that they will get their money from the guardians instead of unemployment benefit. That is the answer to the hon.
  1408
  Member for Mossley, who thinks that the proper course is to allow these people to go to the guardians. They would get the same amount of money as they are getting now, and would get the whole of it from the guardians, instead of part from the guardians and part from the unemployment insurance. The result of that would be a greater charge on public funds, and, therefore, if his argument be correct that an increased charge on public funds will add to unemployment, his remedy is going to be worse than the remedy provided by my right hon. Friend. This memorandum states that it is expected something like £60,000,000 may be expended upon benefits in the course of the next 15 months I know my right hon. Friend feels that he has been on the safe side in making that estimate. I hope that that may be so, and that the amount may be less. I cannot say at present I see such signs of revival in trade as would justify any optimism whatever, but if you take it that £60,000,000 is going to be paid out in benefits, then, I think, you must add, possibly, another £60,000,000 to be expended by the guardians in relief during the same period.
  What are we going to get for £120,000,000 in the course of the next 15 months? It does seem a lamentable thing that all this money is going to be spent in keeping people in idleness. I have already spoken of the effect it produces upon the people themselves. In these circumstances a good many people are revolving in their minds the question whether there is not some way by which you could, at any rate, get some return for the expenditure, which everybody agrees is necessary in order to keep these people's bodies and souls together, and a certain proposition has been made. It is this. I think my right hon. Friend will know that local authorities have put in hand a certain number of relief works, and they have paid labour on those relief works a rate which has been the subject of a certain amount of controversy. Of course, their official resources are limited. They cannot indefinitely continue to spend money on works of public relief, but if they could have a part of this Unemployment Insurance Benefit made over to them instead of to the workmen they could probably employ a large number of people more upon new works, and this would give them some return in the future, and would cost them so much less, whereas

  1409
  they would not be prepared to undertake the work if they had to pay full rates. Seeing that in many cases it is exactly from the same ratepayers that the guardians obtain their income, you would have what the guardians are now paying paid to men actually doing work, instead of being paid to men who are doing nothing at all.
  This scheme has been discussed, particularly in the Midlands, and it has had the warm approval, not only of eminent local authorities there, but also of local labour leaders, who see that atone and the same time you may take a block of people off the Insurance Fund, and these could do for the local authorities' works which would be of solid benefit to them, and would, at the same time, keep up the self-respect of the men who would work upon them. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has been able to give such consideration to a scheme of that kind as enables him to look favourably upon it. I can understand that this is not the simple question that it may, at first sight, be supposed to be. You have got already a large number of men being employed by the local authorities who are not on the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and it may be argued that they would come automatically upon the Insurance Fund if we started a scheme of this kind. I cannot believe that is a difficulty that cannot be got over. After all, I say, the local authorities have already determined that they will embark upon certain works for which they are prepared to pay the full rate. If they are so prepared and, in addition, will undertake further works on condition that they might make some arrangement of this kind, and take a block of men off the Insurance Fund, surely this is a thing which might, at the same time, benefit the Insurance Fund and help the local authorities? I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this idea is worth following up, and that it would be really an economical proposition if it could be put into operation; that he should have it examined by the experts of his Department with a view of seeing whether some practicable scheme cannot be evolved in the course of the next few months.
  I was very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the circular which he had issued to certain trades in
  1410
  connection with the question of unemployment insurance by industry. I do not take the view that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. G Barnes) did of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I understood that he was pursuing this subject, and although he did not see any possibility of putting it into operation at the moment, still he was exploring the difficulty—because this, again, is not a very simple matter. It is a difficult matter. It is a question of different rates of unemployment in the different industries. You also have the fact that people do not want to be confined to one industry, but to be able to move from one to another, and indeed if it did not have elasticity it would be an uneconomical arrangement to the country generally because in every industry you would have a reservoir which could not be used in other industries and which, therefore, would remain permanently unemployed. That would be very undesirable. You must, therefore, have some method by which you could transfer the surplus of labour in one industry to another; a method by which you could make a proper financial adjustment for the different rates of unemployment which prevail. There are other difficulties, but there is so much to commend this scheme in itself that I hope there also the right hon. Gentleman will lose no opportunity of exploring it to the very utmost.
  One great advantage of insurance by industry is that the same people pay the benefit that provide, the employment. Therefore, as they are the same people, it will always be to the interest of those who are concerned in administering the fund to find employment at the earliest possible moment, and so save the contributions to which they are liable. Further than that, I also commend the scheme because I think it is one which brings the employers and employed together. It gets them to work jointly; it has the great merit of bringing them into conference for matters which are not in dispute between them. It is bound to lead to an interchange of information between masters and men as to the state of their industry, and as to the steps that should be taken to make it more prosperous, so relieving unemployment. Those considerations are so weighty in my mind that I do venture to think it is worth while for my right hon. Friend in

  1411
  the time that he has at his disposal to explore some of these difficulties and see whether he cannot find a solution to them.
  Mr. SEXTON: I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having retained the very meagre benefit suggested in the Bill before us. It has relieved some of our anxieties, for our impression generally was that there was likely to be a reduction in the relief now being dispensed to the unemployed. I want to add to that my regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken advantage of this opportunity to remove several of the inequalities which exist, and which apply to the man who is 90 per cent. of his time out of employment and 10 per cent. in, but who is compelled to contribute to an unemployment fund from which he never benefits. I have had the opportunity more than once of bringing this matter before the right hon. Gentleman, and I have been received with courtesy and sympathy, I did hope, therefore, that, on the introduction of a new Measure, some of the suggestions I have made, and some of the inequalities I have pointed out, would perhaps have been dealt with and removed altogether. The right hon. Gentleman will give me and my colleagues credit that at the introduction of the principle of unemployment insurance we persistently opposed the principle of a contributory Bill. We subsequently accepted it as inevitable. I do not want, if possible, to repeat the arguments I used previously, but I have one or two typical cases which I put before the right hon. Gentleman to show the inequalities and injustices which exist, as affecting at least three-quarters of a million of men who have been included in this legislation, and for which the original legislation was never intended.
  Perhaps the House will bear with me, for I must repeat some of my arguments. The principle underlying the system of Unemployment Insurance was based upon the application of Section 2 of the National Health Insurance Act, which only applied to certain scheduled trades which did not afford permanent employment. The men I happen to represent have no employer. They are never employed by any particular person for any length of time. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a case. Of course we
  1412
  will be met by the argument that under the Act things are infinitely better for the bulk of the men who do receive benefit. No doubt there is some truth in that, but if the right hon. Gentleman had met, as I have, day by day, men who have been harshly dealt with by existing legislation, he will be as convinced as I am that if there were only a few cases some remedy ought to be applied to them. I did expect, when new legislation was introduced, that something would be done to temper down the great injustice that hits the men I mention by the six days' qualifying period. The irony of the whole business, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, is that the man who is employed by a permanent employer for three weeks out of a month and is idle one week out of the month is described as a short-timer, although he has three weeks' wages and is paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act for the one week he is idle in the month.
  What is our case? That the casual labour man has no employer. He is employed by Tom to-day, Dick to-morrow, and Harry the day after. He has never an assured full day. He is employed on Monday morning, and after four hours of employment his services are dispensed with in the afternoon. He goes idle till the Wednesday when, perhaps, he get half a day. He may have a day the following week, and these two days in the two weeks rob him of the benefit, although he has been idle five days in the week previously. The right hon. Gentleman tells me, and, of course, I accept it, that that only disqualifies the man from the second Monday, and that if he is idle the next day it makes up the six days. But supposing he is not. Supposing he is employed one day and idle the next day, he is disqualified again. Take another case, a case I have represented to the right hon. Gentleman, of the man who is idle on the Friday morning of this week, and is idle till Friday afternoon at five o'clock the following week. That is six full working days, and because the man gets four hours' employment after five o'clock on the sixth day the present Regulations disqualify him for the whole of the six days. I contend that he ought to be entitled to four days for that week, but he does not get it because he has been employed for four hours after the end of the sixth working day. I recognise the difficulty of the Minister of Labour

  1413
  because the statutory working day is not eight hours, but 24, and if a man is employed any hour or two hours during the 24 hours, that disqualifies him.
  What I have mentioned is no isolated case. These cases come before me every day in the week, and I know the right hon. Gentleman sympathises with them. I admit that the result of my communications with the Minister of Labour has not been altogether unfruitful, because already he has promised investigation, although it is not investigation that I want. I thought the right hon. Gentleman would have removed some of these glaring inequalities, and he must recognise that this machinery was never intended to deal with casual labour. I strongly object to the principle on which the men are dealt with who are idle three days out of each week and have three days' work. Those men have three days' unemployment, and they ought to be scheduled as short-timers just the same as the man who has worked one day out of four.
  I want to say quite frankly that I think this system is an unmistakable encouragement to men not to look for work at all. Take the cases I have mentioned. Supposing a particular firm tells a man to come out after five o'clock at the end of six days. If he does not go, he loses his chance of employment; if he goes, he gets perhaps four hours' work, and he is disqualified for the six previous days. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman has a glorious opportunity here, and I intend to move an Amendment during the Committee stage in the direction I have indicated. The trouble is that we are confronted with this fact: The men who really want unemployment benefit, and who deserve it more than anybody else, if they are employed for only one half-day during the week cannot get it, but they have to pay out of their half-day's wage. The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) hit the nail on the head in his speech. It is quite true that, as a matter of fact, these qualifications and regulations are costing the country considerably more than the concessions I am asking for. If these men do not get assistance from the Government or from Unemployment Insurance, they gradually drift into the ranks of those who think that they can do better by appealing to the Poor Law, because by that means they get
  1414
  more than they would get under the insurance scheme. Therefore, I hope that the Minister in his reply will give me some hope that there is a chance of dealing with the anomalies I have mentioned.
  May I refer shortly to two of the most extraordinary speeches I have ever listened to in this House, the speech of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I do not want to hurt the feelings of any hon. Member who has expressed the view that his heart is bleeding for the poor, and I do not want to follow the arguments of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. On the one hand, as far as the workers are concerned, we have a policy of negation from the hon. Member for Mossley, and the policy of the workhouse from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London.
  The right hon. Baronet has not had much experience in these matters, and he is not justified in recommending the workhouse to anybody. His lot has been pitched in more pleasant places, and if he had had a little more experience of the workhouse, he would be less glib in talking about it. The hon. Member for Mossley said it was hopeless to go on with legislation of this character, because the unfortunate taxpayer would have to pay in the long run. I take this opportunity of seriously suggesting to the hon. Member for Mossley that, if things continue to go on as they are doing, and if something is not done to stop this terrible downward trend of purchasing power, it is just possible that the overburdened taxpayer will no longer be overburdened, because he will have very little money to pay taxes at all, if the people rise up in indignation against this state of things.
  The hon. Member for Mossley based his speech on the law of supply and demand, and I never heard in my life a more eloquent denunciation of the failure of private enterprise. The statement he made was that there was no market for the products of the labourer, and, therefore, there would be no demand, and the situation could not be relieved. I am not going to condemn private enterprise for the sake of condemning it, but there are two kinds of demands. In the first place, there is the artificial demand created by the markets; and, in the second place,

  1415
  there is the natural demand created by the people who are hungry and starving. The latter is the demand that appeals to me most, and if private enterprise has failed to meet that demand, that is a lamentable and abject confession of the failure of private enterprise to meet the natural law of supply and demand.
  The hon. Member for Mossley and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London and others have failed to recognise that there is, after all, a real solution of the question of unemployment, if they will only settle down to consider this striking fact that 300,000,000 producers have gone out of production who were our customers. In the aftermath of the War Central Europe and the Balkan States have all gone practically out of production, and is it any wonder that the whole world is suffering from unemployment to-day? The trouble is not local, but international, and when any attempt is made to relieve it—already the murmurs are loud and deep—even the praiseworthy attempt that is being made by the Prime Minister now has been ridiculed all over the country and in this House by his own colleagues.
  I am not going to suggest or anticipate what will happen in Genoa, but I do suggest and definitely state and believe that statesmen should have the courage to recognise that the real solution is not lowering wages or reducing the purchasing power of the purchaser to a point that he cannot purchase at all. Increased production depends not upon low wages so much as upon vitality, and if you sap the workers' vitality by reducing his purchasing power to the lowest possible minimum his producing power has got to suffer, and his output will not increase but decrease. For these reasons I recommend the Minister of Labour and every Member of the House and the thinking public to recognise that the real solution of the unemployment problem is an international one, and the ordinary remedy will be to set Europe, Central Europe and the whole of Russia on its feet again so that they will be customers for our produce, and thus find employment for the people who are out of work to-day.
  Sir MARTIN CONWAY: I do not as a rule intervene in Debates of this kind, because, generally speaking, there are at least five-and-twenty Members in this
  1416
  House ready to advocate or criticise whatever proposals are under discussion. On this occasion I think that there will be a very considerable dearth of supporters of my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley, who had the courage to offer a direct negative to this Bill. I wish to say a few words in support of his contentions. I think it requires some courage on the part of a representative of a large democratic constituency to advocate the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley. In the nature of things it is not easy to propose a reduction of unemployment benefit or to take any step which might seem to have an effect which might almost be described as cruel. It is so easy to be vicariously charitable. It is so easy to depict the severe trials which a large number of unfortunate people in this country are obliged to suffer through no fault of their own. It is so easy to paint a picture of misery and misfortune. It is so easy to arouse the sympathies which are latent in every breast for the sufferings of our fellow men. Likewise it is so easy, under the enthusiasm of sympathy of that kind, to vote the money of other people for the alleviation of distress. Anyone can do that and go away home feeling as though he has performed a virtuous action, when, in fact, he has quite vicariously satisfied an emotion by charity which involves no sacrifice whatever on his part. As a matter of fact, whether you call it Unemployment Benefit, or National Housing, or Old Age Pensions, or any one of those expenditures of public money, they are in fact all in the nature of public charity; but they have this unfortunate side, that instead of it invoking in the giver the emotion which charity should invoke, instead of invoking in the receiver the emotion of gratitude which should be invoked, they invoke neither the one emotion nor the other. They invoke neither the emotion which induces one to put his hands into his pocket and to deny himself in order that he may give, nor the gratitude which should be felt by the receiver.
  These legislative doles have a bad effect on both the giver and the receiver. They dry up both the sources of charity and the emotion of gratitude. I feel that this kind of vicarious charity, as voted by Parliament, must have a serious and

  1417
  demoralising effect on the people of this country. The great thing to do is to teach men to give. There has never in the past been the smallest lack of generous men and of generous classes in this country, and if it had been left to private enterprise, in the form of charity, to meet the difficulties, trials and horrors of the present day, charity would have risen to the occasion; the money would have been forthcoming, and voluntary effort would have done far better than Legislative action.
  What we are suffering from, as the last speaker (Mr. Sexton) said, is a paralysis, not merely of our own industries at home, but a paralysis of industries all over Europe. Why is industry paralysed, and what remedy can we find for it? I am not one of those who say that the Genoa Conference is a foolish undertaking. I would try every possible remedy. The paralysis of the industry of the world is due to the fact that the capital of the world has been very largely destroyed. It has been blown into the air, burnt and wrecked in every kind of way. Much of the capital on which the industries of the world depend has passed out of existence and until it is recreated industry must suffer and unemployment must be rife all the world over. There is no way of recreating that capital by borrowing money, by issuing scrip, or by any kind of agreement between country and country. No financier can create what does not exist. No paper by being printed, and with any amount of backing behind it, if it does not represent real capital is of value. You cannot get the workers of the world at work again without real capital at their back, and that can only be created by industry, by wise invention, by skilful direction and by the two forces that make industry profitable—by the work of the hand and the work of the brain. These two co-operating together can recreate capital, and if when produced it can be saved and not immediately spent it will supply us with the means of getting rid of this horrible unemployment.
  What you demand you will get. What you pay money for you will get. If you demand unemployment you will get it. If you pay for unemployment you will get men out of work. I do not mean to suggest that if you cease to pay for unemployment all unemployment will cease, but the tendency is always the same.
  1418
  You will get the thing you pay for, and if you officially state that you will pay for unemployment you will aggravate the very condition which you desire to relieve. What you want to demand now is capital. You want more capital.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1922.

  2. Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation Act, 1922.

  3. Stirling Corporation (Water, etc.) Order Confirmation Act, 1922.

  4. Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1922.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
7.0 P.M.
Sir M. CONWAY: I was pointing out that demand creates supply, that if we demand unemployment we shall, to some extent, get unemployment, that, similarly, if we are to increase our needed supply of capital it must be by demanding capital, and the demand for capital can only take the form, in our present organisation, of a demand for capitalists. Capitalists are not necessarily men of great wealth; they are men who can and will save money. The exorbitant rewards, as many of us think, which capital is sometimes able to get at the present day are due to the fact that there are so relatively few people capable of self-denial and saving, and therefore the reward they receive is out of all proportion to the work they do. That reward will remain high as long as capitalists are few, and will diminish as they increase in number. I want to ask—though I fear it is a question nobody can answer—whether as a matter of fact we are now piling up capital as a nation or whether we are wasting it; whether from year to year now that the War is over, we are

1419
replacing the vast destruction of capital which the War caused or whether we are still continuing to deplete still further our diminished store. I ask that question because it is the most vital question for the future of the country. It is the one on which unemployment, or rather the diminution of unemployment, depends, and on which the question of the unemployment donation likewise depends. Are we still continuing to spend our capital or are we piling it up?
My hon. Friend who spoke last, the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), complained of the terrible present state of things, and I think almost hinted that the Government had something to do with it. The condition of the country is as much outside of our possibility of changing as the condition of the weather. We might every bit as well try to pass Acts of Parliament to change the weather as to alter the economic situation of the country. It can only be altered by hard work, by self-denial, saving, thrift, industry, and public spirit. Those ancient virtues have had their value from the very beginning of time, and will maintain their value to the very end. Never will the day come when the health and prosperity of a country will depend upon anything but those. It may be necessary, in the exceptional circumstances in which we live, to act in a manner not strictly according to economic principles, but what we have to aim at is a return to sound finance, economy, and payment one to another for work done according to its value. In proportion as we return to that healthful condition of industry in that proportion will prosperity come back to the country and unemployment cease.
Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) referred to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment as one of the most extraordinary he had heard. I venture to suggest that if he had heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down he would have said we have had two of the most extraordinary speeches to which he ever listened, because what did the hon. Member say in his opening remarks? If I do not misunderstand him, he put forward a plea that the State must not step in in this most exceptional period to relieve the
1420
distress and hardship which is falling upon the country, because if it did it would dry up the wells of charity, and he argued that it was essential that private charity should be maintained. I gather from that that the only conclusion one must draw is that all the suffering for which those who suffer are in no way responsible must be maintained lest the wells of private charity shall be dried up—surely an economic and moral fallacy which I cannot think will find any support in this House. The hon. Gentleman said it was necessary that we should save and get more capital thereby. We shall all agree, but I submit to him and to the House that the scheme he suggests would be a much more expensive scheme than that which the Minister is putting forward.
Reference has been made earlier in the Debate to the fact that by means of the benefit paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act many men otherwise compelled to go to the guardians and to receive that State charity or relief which was so favoured by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who would be drawing from the guardians sums infinitely greater than those they are content to receive in the form of unemployment charity, are not doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Lady wood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) developed that at some length. He pointed out that many self-respecting men would never receive public aid, and would refuse to go to the guardians so long as there was any means whereby they could be kept from destitution and from this unexampled unemployment. As a matter of fact, last week the unemployment committee in the town I have the honour to represent took out some figures bearing on this question, which showed that in the early days and the middle of last year out of every nine people drawing unemployment benefit only one was supplemented by benefit by going to the guardians. All were entitled to go to the guardians on account of the meagre sum they were receiving, but during that period only one out of every nine took advantage of that right. As, however, their savings were dissipated that number increased until three out of every nine went to the guardians, and inquiries I have made since show that that figure has increased still further. This emphasises what other speakers have

1421
said with reference to an unfortunate deterioration and compelling of the worker to seek that Poor assistance which, if any other means were available, he would refuse to take. He would be more content with fifteen, twenty, or twentyfive shillings from the upemployment benefit rather than get 50 shillings from the Poor Law guardians.
I would go one step further in supporting the facts brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood and say that if we could make it possible for these people to refrain from going to the guardians by increasing unemployment benefit, we should, in the end, secure a saving to the public cost. It is immaterial whether it comes out of the public taxes through the Exchequer or from public funds through the ratepayers. It is a charge on the public, and a withdrawal of money from capital in either case. If we can have a lesser sum taken because it is free from the stigma of pauperism, as it comes from the unemployment benefit, then I say that, though you are increasing the charge in one way, you are reducing the net charge by that means. I would suggest that any alteration made in Committee should rather be in the direction of increasing that than that it should be reduced. I put this plea forward, not merely from the point of view of the individuals concerned, but from the point of view of the community and of the industrial area affected, because you find that, in the industrial areas where the greatest number of people are thrown out of work, there is an increasing burden on the local rates.
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: On a point of Order. We are now engaged in discussing the Unemployment Insurance Bill. An hon. Member on the other side has made a speech, and my hon. Friend is now making a speech, putting forward very important points. We are dealing, too, with a financial Bill involving the expenditure of money. There is no representative of the Treasury present, and there is no one representing the Department immediately concerned. May I ask whether it is not the business of these Ministers to show the House a little courtesy in such a matter?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not really a point of Order, but I am with the hon. Member. I think that, especially in a case in which two Ministers are concerned,
1422
one or other of them should be present, unless there be some quite exceptional reason.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should propose to move the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER: I would suggest that the hon. Member might allow a short-interval to elapse, and I will take the Motion if one of the Ministers has not arrived in the meantime.
Mr. THOMSON: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this point. It is not that I should consider any remarks that I might make to be worthy of the attention of the Minister, but his presence is due to the House, as a matter of courtesy when we are discussing a question of such great economic importance. The point I was trying to make was that an undue burden was being placed on those very areas which are least able to bear it. At the present time unemployment is bad throughout the country as a whole, but the burden is necessarily falling most heavily on those areas where big industries are normally engaged, and where not only the people engaged in those industries, but also the tradesmen and others, suffer. In addition to that, these very areas are hit more heavily than the rest of the country because they have to carry practically the whole burden of their own unemployment. In support of that contention, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that you have a system of rating which hits most hardly the large industrial areas. I have some figures which have been taken out for rates during the current year, and I find that in a large industrial area like that of Birmingham the rates are 18s. in the £, to which are added the Poor Law charges caused by insufficiency of unemployment benefit, whereas in Blackpool, which has a small industrial population, they are 9s. In East Ham they are 27s., as against 11s. 6d. in Eastbourne, which is a large residential area. In my own town the rates are 20s., as against 10s. 10d. in the residential area of Bournemouth. In Swansea they are 18s. 8d., and in South-port 10s.; and so on throughout the country. In a greater or lesser degree the big industrial areas, which are hardest hit at the present time, are bearing a much bigger charge than those other parts of the country which are

1423
fortunately not hit to the same extent. The point I want to make is that equalisation of the burden should be helped by an increased national charge on the Exchequer, so that the whole community may help to bear that burden, which is a national burden, and in no way due to any defect in the local government of the towns and districts affected. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he should see whether, by this system of co-ordination which he is considering, some assistance could be given, either by increased benefit or in other ways, so that these large industrial areas, which have to bear such an excessive burden, should not be further penalised. The industries that we desire to see recover are themselves burdened by these extra taxes, which are becoming a greater strain than they can possibly stand.
I should like to support the contention which has been put forward that the Minister should give more sympathetic consideration to the question of the renewal of Section 18 of the 1920 Act, which provides for insurance by industry. I know that there are limitations to what can be done in that direction, but at the present time there seem to be two lines of development—either placing on the industry itself the whole burden, or placing on the community as a whole its responsibility for these charges when they occur. I think it would be better not to rely entirely on the one or on the other, but that, by a combination of the two—by maintaining to a certain extent the charge which the community as a whole should bear in this matter, and at the same time making it in the interests of an industry to reduce by better organisation the amount of its unemployment—you might get an infinitely superior scheme to that which we have at the present time. At present there is no special interest in any industry to reduce the amount, of its unemployment. It knows that, as trade ebbs and flows, it can take on or discharge at will the number of men that may be required. There are always surplus men available for it just as it needs them. But if any particular industry had to bear the burden of that charge, and to carry, as one of its standing charges, its surplus number of unemployed upon which it could claim when industry improved, then, by means of reorganisation and of spreading
1424
work over the whole period of the year instead of doing it at certain seasonal times, it would be able in a measure—I do not say entirely—to reduce the amount of unemployment which now exists. At any rate, it would be given an incentive to seek to mitigate the evils with which we are confronted.
The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that he saw gleams of hope in the lessened amount of unemployment shown in the annual returns. That may be so in certain districts, but in other districts, unfortunately, the number of unemployed is increasing week by week, and I think we shall all share the gloom and apprehension felt by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) in regard to the picture which is before us. I trust that out of the terrible suffering which is now so prevalent some good may come, in that the State and the community will recognise their responsibility in the matter in a way they have never done before. I am satisfied that we shall not go back, as those who moved and seconded this Amendment desire, to the crude doctrine of laissez faire, leaving each one to look after himself, but rather that the community as a whole, either by an extension of insurance by industry, or by a combined scheme in which the State recognises its collective responsibility, we shall be able, in the years of good trade that will come, to put by a fund upon which we can draw when the lean years follow. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the 1920 Act was suffering because there were no reserves which could be drawn upon in order to meet the period of unemployment that followed in 1920 before the Act got properly under way. That, however, was a matter which might have been foreseen. We had in 1918 a Department of Reconstruction, busy with various schemes in order to protect the country as a whole against that which was bound to follow upon a great world-wide War. The Government might in 1919 have got a scheme under way, and, in that year of abnormally good trade, might have built-up a reserve fund upon which they could have drawn at the present time. Since that was not done, I think the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly justified in asking the House to increase the amount he seeks to borrow in order to get us out of the difficulties which were not provided for on the lines I have suggested.

1425
I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to the proposals of the hon. Member for Lady-wood (Mr. N. Chamberlain). The local authorities might be encouraged to utilise the money which the right hon. Gentleman is prepared, in the form of benefit, to give to districts, rather in carrying out reconstruction work and schemes for the improvement of their own localities. We are told that at least £120,000,000 is likely to be spent in unemployment benefit during the next 12 months, for which there is no tangible result in the way of work performed. I think we must all agree that it is infinitely better to find work of a beneficial character, and get some value for our money. In reply to a question which I put to him the other day, the Minister said that in the building trades alone there were about 176,00p unemployed. I would urge that he should take counsel with the Minister of Health, and see whether some of those 176,000 men, to whom he is paying unemployment benefit at the rate of over £100,000 every week for doing nothing, might be set to work in building some of those houses for which the great industrial districts of this country are clamouring, and in providing some of those homes that were promised over and over again from the Government Bench. I suggest that it would be a wise economic policy, instead of spending this money in benefit, to spend it in wages to those who are accustomed by their trade to build the houses which we so much need. It is not merely a question of houses. The Minister of Education said the other day that last year a large number of schemes for increasing our school accommodation, providing open-air schools, and schools for the treatment of mental defectives, had been held up for one reason or another. It would be a wise policy, instead of spending all this money for nothing, that some of it 6hould be spent in encouraging local authorities to put in hand those schemes for social reconstruction which are absolutely necessary now, and which will have to be provided in the course of a few years' time. It would be far better to forestall by two or three years the work that has to be done, and to do it now, thereby providing work rather than merely paying unemployment benefit. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his colleagues that it would be really sound economic policy to have something to show
1426
for these millions which are bound to be paid away during the coming year.
I should also like to support the point put forward by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) as to whether it is not possible to remove some of those minor inequalities which do affect the working of the present Unemployment Insurance Act, particularly with regard to riverside workers and dockers. I do not want to go into the formula with which we are so well acquainted, but in the working of which hardships are inflicted, but only to suggest that now is the opportunity, when we are revising the machinery of Measures that have been passed, to find some means whereby some of these grievances, which are, possibly, minor grievances, but which cause irritation and a great sense of injustice, may be removed. A further and more important point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby with regard to the innocent sufferers in an industrial dispute. The right hon. Gentleman made reference to the troublesome times of to-day, and perhaps I may mention, as an illustration, what happened last year in the case of the moulders' dispute. There you had, in the foundry, moulders, skilled tradesmen, who had a dispute with their employers, and who were naturally not entitled to draw benefit. But you had also their labourers, who were in no way connected with the Moulders' Union and were in no way responsible for the dispute, and yet under the ruling of the Act they were disqualified from drawing any benefit. They were members in many cases of the General Workers' Union. In the same works, in a different department, you had other labourers who were thrown out of work because of the dispute in the moulding shop, but the labourers who were working in the steel works department of the same firm, members of the same union, received their unemployment benefit, whereas their comrades who were employed in other departments did not receive it. Surely thawing a most anomalous condition, members of the same trades union, workers employed by the same firm, and yet the one received unemployment benefit and the others did not. It should not pass the wit of man to devise a formula whereby this sense of injustice can be removed, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seize this opportunity of removing that and re-

1427
moving the other to which the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) referred.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he should learn from the experience of the past and not let things drift in the future. I think this is the fifth Unemployment Benefit Bill which the Government have introduced. Every time it has been brought in at the last minute and rushed through in order to deal with an emergency which has arisen. Cannot we be wise in the future, and cannot the Minister devise some scheme whereby when the next period of good trade comes provision shall be made during that period so that we shall not have to have this haphazard and hasty legislation when the evil is upon us I Hundreds of thousands today are suffering who have never suffered before. Unemployment is not a question of the weary Willie and the tired Tim. It is not a question of offering the workhouse. Does anyone suggest that if the 2,000,000 who are unemployed were cut off from any benefit whatever they could get work? Does anyone suggest that employers could find work whatever the wages were? Work is not forthcoming. Now is the time to put into force some of the recommendations of the Poor Law Commission of 1908, which suggested that a wise Government should plan out in advance a properly conceived scheme for dealing with this problem of unemployment, viewing it in all its aspects, so that for the future if a crisis like this should arise adequate provision should be made and funds should have been built up so that no longer should the worker have staring him in the face that dread fear of unemployment which in the past has followed every cycle of trade which has ebbed and flowed.
Mr. LYLE: I wish to say a few words on the Bill from the point of view of hospital nurses—not only nurses who are in hospital, but nurses who have been fully trained. I think the House was probably not fully aware of the position until a day or two ago when they were circularised. Nurses are rather slow to take up their own case, but once they take it up and circularise hon. Members they get circulars in good numbers and everybody knows all about it. But up to recently I do not think Members of the House of Commons have realised the injustice under which nurses have been suffering by reason of the working of this
1428
Act. A decision was come to by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman who now sits on that Bench, that nurses, were included under the terms of the recent Act. They have a rooted objection to coming under this Act and the question whether they are really under it is one of law which has not been entirely settled because there is a case pending which will probably be taken right up to the Courts by one of our hospitals because the authorities are advised by a highly competent authority that nurses are really not included under the old Act. At any rate, according to the Minister, nurses are included under the old Act, and most of them pay their contribution. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor took a considerable time to come to a decision on the matter, from which I infer that he and his advisers were rather doubtful whether nurses were really included or not. Certain classes of people were exempt from that Act, why, I do not know—agriculture and domestic service, to mention two cases. Why were not the views of the nurses considered when that Act was drafted? They slipped into it, and now we have to try to see if we cannot slip them out of it, and now is our opportunity. About November of last year I took a deputation to see the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. It was representative of almost all the nursing associations. I should like to express our gratitude to him for the sympathetic way in which he received us. He said that under his ruling nurses were included, and the only thing to do was to bring in an amending Bill. In the present state of legislation there was a very poor chance of getting that carried into effect, but when new legislation was necessary he would consider the matter. I also had a letter from the right hon. Gentleman in which he said:
"So long as the liability for unemployment exists I am bound to give very careful consideration to any suggestion for the exclusion of any particular class or person from the provisions of the Act before taking any action. If further legislation be necessary I will of course give due weight to the representations which von have made to me."
I was unable to hear the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I do not think he made any mention of nurses, and he has not told us what was the result of giving due weight to their representations. I should very much like if

1429
he can tell us what is his opinion on the point, because it might save many of us a good deal of trouble if he would give us his decision on the matter.
I do not think there is any doubt about the volume of the opposition on the part of the nurses to be included in this Act. When the various nurses' societies found the opposition so intense to being included under the Act they took a referendum and over 35,500 trained nurses, and nurses in training, have signed a protest, which they sent to the Minister of Labour, asking him to exempt the nursing profession. The reasons for their hostility are not far to seek. The first is that, compared with other callings, there is very little unemployment. We have constantly asked for statistics, but such statistics as we have been able to get have confirmed the fact that there is very little unemployment in the nursing profession. The second point is that the machinery of the Act set up to obtain benefits, namely the Employment Exchanges, have never appealed to nurses. They are not acceptable to professional women. They are not inclined to go to Employment Exchanges and form up in queues and wait for what is called their dole. They do not like it, and rightly or wrongly they are not going for the dole. If they are unemployed they would sooner remain unemployed and not have the dole than go to the Employment Exchange and get it. The third point is that there are a large number of nurses for whom it is impossible to be unemployed. They are working in hospitals, and nurses in training, under a four-years' agreement or something of that sort whereby it is physically impossible for them to be unemployed. If they are unemployed it can only be for misconduct, or for reasons of that sort, which preclude them under the Act from getting benefit. So you have the fact that the unfortunate ladies of the nursing profession have to pay this unemployment toll, and not only that, but every now and again it is increased, and something more is put on to it, and month by month they find more and more is being taken from their slender resources, and most of them do not intend to take any benefit and very many of them cannot be in the position of wanting to take it because they are employed under a contract.
1430
It really comes to this, that the Minister is asking nurses out of their charity to provide for other classes of the community who are unemployed, or at least to help, while they themselves are not subject to unemployment, and are paid so little that it is not possible for them to make provision for their old age and for the days when they can work no longer, which, unfortunately, come all too soon to ladies of the nursing profession. What nurses want is not such a scheme as this, but a superannuation fund. If something of that sort could be given them they would welcome it with open arms. The Minister said at the deputation in November that he was asking a penny more per week from each nurse and each employer during the coming months to help towards the maintenance of the women and children of the unemployed. He promised to survey the whole subject of unemployment insurance and superannuation as it affected nurses and to meet us again later, and he reminded us that no steps could be taken for an amending Act until next Session. There is no class in the world who would sooner help others, as their whole lives prove, but is it fair that nurses, who are, unfortunately, so very insufficiently paid at the present moment, should have money drawn from their slender resources to provide for unemployment, while they themselves do not share in the benefits of this scheme for its relief? I am perfectly certain the Minister for Labour—who has shown himself sympathetic, and I have already thanked him—I am certain he does not want to take advantage of the nurses, but I am not sure that the people who merely look on the figures and advise him on the financial side will have the same feeling, because obviously the very argument I have used will appeal to them. It is good for them that there should be people in the Bill who are paying money and getting no advantage. They will throw up their caps and shout "Hurrah!" because by that means their scheme will be an entirely successful one from the Minister's point of view. However, I am perfectly certain I can appeal to the Minister, and that he will not in this case put nurses in that position.
I have already mentioned the large number of signatures we had objecting to the inclusion of nurses. I do not think there is any doubt about the facts. Very I often nurses are divided on certain sub

1431
jects, but in this particular case the great volume of the nursing profession is entirely at one. They want to be exempted, and, if there are any who do not wish to be exempted, surely it is possible to put in a Clause which would make it optional for anyone who wanted to remain in to do so. If it be not possible to grant an option, I do press the Minister to give me a reply and say what his action is to be. He said to our deputation in his letter that he would give due consideration to our representation, and let us know at the proper time, when new legislation was necessary, whether he could help us or not. The time has now come when new legislation is being introduced. There is not a word about the exclusion of nurses in this Bill, and nothing has fallen from the Minister's lips on the subject. I do not know whether that is a bad omen or not.
It is all very well for hon. Members and the Minister to talk about the nursing profession, about the magnificent work that they did, and the national tributes paid to nurses, but here is an opportunity when we can do something for them. If I am wrong in my facts I am willing to be corrected, but I think I am safe in saying that the vast majority of the nurses wish to be out of the Bill. The societies I quoted were not unanimous on every point, but were unanimous on that. There was another society which did not come in, but I think you will not find that they are keen at this moment on stopping out. They would have liked some other scheme, but I do not think you will find any great opposition from that quarter, and if opposition does appear from that quarter I think the Minister should make himself aware of the numbers who are represented by it, because there is a very small minority of people who wish to remain in the Bill. I do not wish to say any more at this stage, but I should like at a future time, on the Committee stage, to move an Amendment excluding nurses from the operation of the Bill. If the Minister will tell us some time shortly that he is prepared to consider such a thing, it will make the matter very simple. We have all talked about our admiration for the nurses, and our desire to do something for them. Here is our opportunity, and I do ask the Minister not to turn a deaf
1432
ear to our plea, but to give it as careful consideration as I would like.
Mr. RHYS J. DAVIES: I am glad the unemployment question is pressing itself upon Parliament to such an extent that it comes before the House periodically and emerges at last as a question of importance to statesmen. Not many years ago, when the unemployed were clamouring for something to be done, Parliament took very little heed of their requests. I repeat that I am glad the unemployment problem has become one for discussion and one to be translated, I hope, into ameliorative Measures that will help us out of our difficulties. I was astonished to hear some of the arguments used in this House to-day. I trust and hope that the hon. Member who represents the Universities (Sir M. Conway) in this House is not expressing their point of view when he says that charity ought to be sufficient to meet this problem. I wish the hon. Member could come with me to a mining district I visited early this week, where practically the whole of the people are either totally or partially unemployed. When he addressed this House to-day and made the statement that the State should not intervene in an affair of this kind and added that charitable means should be sufficient to meet the case, I wondered what he would have said about that township where practically the whole of the people are in abject poverty. There are no persons living in that township, so far as I know, who are capable in any way of extending charity to their unfortunate friends and neighbours. Unemployment as we know it to-day is the result of a great national calamity. It is the result of the War, and we on these benches claim that the effects of the War ought to be dealt with nationally in exactly the same fashion as we dealt with the War itself. The consequences of the War ought to be a national concern just as the War was a concern of the State. I feel sure that the statement of the Minister of Labour to-day will be received with keen disappointment by the unemployed and organised working people of this country. Last October the Prime Minister came forward in this House and raised the hopes of the people of this country with his unemployment proposals. These were

1433
that the Government would set aside £25,000,000 to stimulate trade; that they would make grants amounting to £10,000,000 by way of loans to local authorities to provide work on relief schemes for the unemployed; and that they were willing to spend a sum of £300,000 to help ex-service men to emigrate. His fourth proposal was to the effect that men and women who are in constant employment would be levied a sum of 2d. per week in order to provide 5s. for the wives of the unemployed men and 1s. in respect to each child. Bearing these hopes in mind, the unemployed to-day will be greatly disappointed with the paltry proposal that the Minister of Labour is now bringing forward. What does it mean? It means that the Government have nothing whatsoever to offer to the unemployed people of this country except the continuance of this benefit.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not go into other phases of our endeavours. I only dealt with the question of insurance.
Mr. DAVIES: That is the point I am coming to. We are at last down to the one and only proposal, so far as I know, that the Government can make to deal with the unemployment problem. If I understood the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to a question to-day, he stated that the unemployed benefits paid in 1920 amounted to £15,500,000; in 1921 to £62,500,000; and in the first three months of 1922, £16,500,000. I am glad that he has been good enough on more than one occasion to try to destroy the idea which is abroad that this money is in the nature of a dole. It is nothing of the kind. The men in the workshops and factories have paid for this benefit just as they have contributed for the benefits of the State Health Insurance scheme.
8.0 P.M.
I come now to a point made by the hon. Member representing the English Universities when he said that this was other people's money, and that we were very ready in this House to grant away huge sums which belonged to someone else. I hope I may not be misunderstood by hon. Members on the other side of the House when I state that if all the workpeople of this country declined to work for two or three months, there would be no money worth having in this country. When the unemployed are receiving this benefit, partly paid by the employer and partly by the State, they
1434
are only receiving a portion of that wealth which they have created in the past, and which ought to have been theirs a long time ago. We have a report from the Government Actuary relative to the proposals contained in this Bill. I am glad to note that this is a report by a Government Actuary; it is not an actuarial report. It is impossible, with regard to unemployment in this or any other country, to make an actuarial report. I think the actuary has done well out of a bad job. I would not criticise the actuary, because I know the valuable work he has done for the State. But I think it was grossly unfair to ask any actuary to give us a report on these proposals. There is no basis whatsoever for an actuarial calculation on unemployment. The trade unions have endeavoured for years to analyse and secure a guide from their statistics regarding unemployment. I dare venture to remind the Minister of his own statements he made on his proposals in October, which he will now find are repudiated. The whole of the report of the actuary has been proved to be incorrect. No actuary, however clever he may be, can at any time forecast unemployment in this or any other country. The Minister of Labour knows that all you can do is to tell the actuary the number of unemployed you think will come on the funds, and then he makes calculations the best way he can.
Dr. MACNAMARA: That is what is done.
Mr. DAVIES: The present Estimate given by the Minister is too optimistic. I do not want to be pessimistic. I think it is the duty of all leaders of men to press forward, as far as possible, in an optimistic mood. At the same time, I venture to call the attention of the Minister to these calculations; ho states that in June, 1922, there will be 1,900,000 unemployed in this country, and 1,500,000 unemployed afterwards. I would like to ask him by what reasoning he has arrived at these figures? It may be a new doctrine in this House, but I venture to say what a large number of economists are thinking—that the whole system of society under which we are now living is likely to break down. It is well worth while stating what is

1435
said by men of intelligence in this country, that the capitalist system, as we know it, has absolutely failed. The Minister of Labour ought, I think, to take account of that in his calculations.
I come now to the question of the charge that is made of malingering. I must here pay a tribute to the Minister of Labour. I have felt delighted on many occasions that he has resisted the charge made of malingering on the part of people drawing benefits. The charge is made by inference in this House that, so long as we continue paying unemployment benefit, men and women who receive it will not week work. As one experienced in administering the distribution of State health benefits I can say that there are more workpeople who return to employment before they are physically fit than there are those who take the reverse course. In fact, we ought to make this as clear as we can on every occasion, that the normal occupation of man is work, and that the vast majority of our people will work if they can get it. If work could be found to-day as we found work during the period of the War, the Minister of Labour would not require to come to this House to ask for the passing of this Bill. I speak from personal experience on another point. In January this year most approved societies paying sickness and disablement benefits to the very persons who are insured for unemployment benefit have had the appalling experience, that they have paid away, on the average, twice the amount of sickness benefit that they paid away in any corresponding period since 1912. Unemployment is not only demoralising our people in the way indicated by some hon. Members, but it is deteriorating their physique. Unless we can find work we shall come to the point when a large number of them will be totally unemployable. I wonder why we cannot emerge with a new philosophy in this connection. It would be a thousand times better for our people if they were employed, even if the balance-sheet of their employment in a commercial way showed a dead loss of £1 a week per man. That would be better than continuing as we are now, paying away huge sums of money without any return whatsoever. That I suggest is a statement which ought to receive careful consideration. The relief schemes now in existence are very
1436
unremunerative. Work should be productive, and there is still a great deal to be done in that direction.
In conclusion, I agree with the Minister when he states that we are departing from the ordinary rules of insurance when we are dealing with a Bill such as is now before the House. Insurance, after all, ought to mean that a person who pays contributions is entitled, at any rate, to receive benefits if he is otherwise eligible. But you have persons contributing to this scheme who will never be entitled to them. You have unmarried persons who are not entitled to the 5s. and 1s. allowances. It is not an insurance scheme at all; and I would ask the Minister not to take so much heed of the demand made for in insurance by industry. When you come down to the thousand and one little industries which cannot be regarded in the same category as the mining, railway, or any of the big industries, there, I think, the Minister would find difficulties. Take the dressmaking trade. No industry covering dressmaking could provide an insurance that would give benefit for people because they are unemployed for three or four months every year. I hope the Minister will resist, therefore, any claims made upon him with regard to insurance by industry pure and simple. I feel that a great step in advance has been made and that the State is, after all, accepting some responsibility for unemployment. I believe, of course from an economic point of view, that unemployment is only just as old as capitalism itself, and will die when capitalism dies—when we have a better system of society. But in the interim Parliament does well to consider these schemes, and I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is in the position that he has to provide a scheme at the worst time, probably, in history. I would have preferred that a scheme had been launched when the workpeople were in constant employment; reserves could then have been set aside to meet bad days. What troubles the world is that the War destroyed our means to live decently. Whereas the Minister of Labour may be satisfied, possibly, with this Measure, I trust that in the Cabinet he will do his best to work for peace and goodwill on earth, which is the only means whereby we can do away with unemployment altogether.
Mr. JOHNSTONE: Why should well-favoured trades be left out of a national scheme of this sort? There may be some grounds for making an exception in the case of nurses, but the essence of an insurance scheme is the average risk. It will never do to include the worst trades and to exclude the best from the Bill. That brings me to to the point of unemployment insurance by industry. I hope the Minister will not attach too much importance to that argument. In any scheme of insurance it is the average risk that has to be taken, and if you exclude the best trades and keep in the worst, you weaken, if not destroy, the whole scheme. An hon. Member, speaking from the Labour Benches, showed that he was fully alive to the limitations of any scheme of insurance by industry. Our industries are not in what might be called watertight compartments. When the scheme of unemployment insurance was first brought in, I confess that I was opposed to the whole business, but now that it has been in operation, and has been extended, I hold that the right policy is to take full advantage of the scheme, to enlarge it and to make it more comprehensive that it has been hitherto.
Reference has been made to the payment to local authorities of the insurance benefit in order that the money may be employed on relief works. That could not be done. The payment is made to the individual and not to local authorities. Whatever may be done—and much may still be done to provide funds for local authorities to engage in relief work—it is possible for the Minister to do anything of the kind under this scheme.
That brings me to the suggestion that the payment of the benefit is a charity. It is nothing of the kind. Wherever you have a contributory scheme of this nature, with three-quarters of the contributions borne by employers and workmen, and about one-quarter by the State, it is an abuse of words to call the unemployment benefit a charity. If the scheme were non-contributory and the State paid all, it might be argued that it was the same as local Poor Law relief. If we manage to steer through the present abnormal conditions and the oppression that is bearing upon industry—these conditions are greatly alleviated by the proposals of this Bill—and if we get back to normal times, it would be quite possible to build
1438
up such a fund in connection with unemployment insurance that in times of abnormal depression it would be able to bear all the burdens cast upon it, and to give benefits even on a larger scale and for a longer period. We should not judge this scheme by the present abnormal conditions. Let us get through these trying times, and we shall then be able to extend and build up the scheme on a national basis, bringing in as many trades as possible.
Dr. MURRAY: I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of Labour the case of unemployed fishermen. I am quite aware of the difficulty of including what are called share fishermen within the Bill, but that does not excuse the Minister or the House from considering the fact that in the fishing industry the conditions are almost as bad as, and in some cases are perhaps worse, in this country than in any other country. The class of men to whose case I draw attention are men who are not fishermen all the year round. Many thousands of them belong to what might be called an amphibious class. They work on land and they work at sea; they draw their living from the land as well as from the sea. They go for a few weeks' fishing, but for most of the year are engaged on land as general labourers. As they are engaged in fishing part of the year they are classified as fishermen. I get scores of complaints from men of that type and I send the Minister of Labour a sample now and then. The reply I receive always is that fishing being their employment they cannot come within this Bill, although as general labourers working on the roads or picking up a job on a farm they pay the unemployment contribution whilst so engaged. These men when discharged from that labouring work and unemployed get no benefit, because technically they are classified as fishermen.
The right hon. Gentleman would do a great service to a deserving class, not only in my own constituency, but all round the coast of Scotland, if, by Regulation or otherwise, these men could be regarded as general labourers. That is really what they are. Thousands of these men did great service in the Royal Naval Reserve and in the Army during the War. An administrative point I should like to bring under the notice of the Minister is, that when these cases are

1439
refused the reason for refusal should be given. In that way a great deal of correspondence could be avoided. In addition to the men I have mentioned, there are thousands of women in the same case. They are occasional workers, employed for a few weeks here and a few weeks there, and falling just short of the necessary qualification. Before this Bill becomes law, the Minister should take these cases into consideration and see if he cannot do something to meet them. These people are not so numerous as the workers in the great centres of industry, but the distress to the individual is the same, in both cases. I know the right hon. Gentleman is sympathetic, and I appreciate his difficulty in the matter, but I think a solution could be found for this difficulty, which particularly affects my own part of the country. As I have said, these men are amphibious. They are in such a situation that they may fall between two stools and receive no assistance at all. I hope the Minister will look into their grievance and do something, in connection with this Bill, to remedy it, if it cannot be remedied by means of a Regulation.
Mr. L. MALONE: The only three Members so far in the Debate to oppose the suggestion of giving relief to the unemployed have shown a sense of complete dissociation from the realities of the evils arising from unemployment. I suggest that those gentlemen should go down to the East End of London, and see the conditions under which the unemployed are living, and the terrible situation in which they are placed to-day. Let these gentlemen go down there, where I have been only recently, and see what it is like. Let them see the small, dank, dark, dripping, unhealthy insanitary hovels of three or four rooms each, containing four or five families, numbering perhaps 25 to 35 individuals. I think if they do so they will not come back here and make such speeches as we have heard this afternoon. They tell us that industry cannot afford to pay this dole. I need only, in reply to that, suggest looking at the figures of the money which industry has been able to find in the last 12 months. It found no less than £389,000,000 worth of new capital, which is greater than the amount raised in 1920, and twice the amount found in the pre-War year of 1913. I do
1440
not need to say anything more as to the opponents of the Bill. I suggest, first, that they should look into the question of the lives which these people lead, and, secondly, ascertain the facts of the financial situation before opposing the Measure.
I am not, however, speaking in support of this Measure further than that I realise, as the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said, that we have got to be thankful it it, but only because half a loaf is better than no bread. This Bill shows the patchwork, tinkering nature of the present Government's legislation. It shows that the Government have no intention of dealing with the root causes of unemployment. What are those root causes? I believe, and an ever-increasing number of people in the country believe, that unemployment will continue while industry is organised, as it is to-day, while industry is run for private profit and not for public benefit. Just so long as industry is maintained on this system, so long will we find a reserve of labour either growing or declining, but always there, in recurring cycles, according to the trade situation. The employers welcome that situation. They approve of an organisation of industry under which they can discharge their men out of the shops, without any responsibility, without any care as to how the men live, but with the knowledge that, whenever the men are wanted, whenever trade increases, they have only to go outside their gates and find half-starving men whom they can call in to work at any wages they like to offer.
If it be really necessary to continue to live under this system of society, then industry ought to provide for its unemployed when it cannot give them work. It is a matter for discussion as to whether each industry should find that wage or whether it should be found by organised groups of industry. I would not offer an opinion on that here, but if industry cannot provide employment for its people it should find them at least a living wage when it cannot give them work. Let us look at the other side of the case. How are shareholders treated in this matter? Every large industrial undertaking in the country, from year to year, builds up a reserve fund, out of which, in lean years such as we are now experiencing, the directors supplement the profits which they give to shareholders. In 1921 the

1441
great firm of J. and P. Coats, the cotton thread monopolists in this country, only made profits amounting to £2,000,000 sterling. The directors did not consider that that was enough for their ordinary shareholders so they took out of the reserve fund an extra quarter of a million and paid it to the ordinary shareholders. In this way the ordinary shareholders who contribute nothing to the work of the industry are safeguarded in the lean years. Is the worker safeguarded in the same way? Not at all. Directors who can pay large sums to shareholders in lean years are content to see workers starving at the gates in periods of unemployment.
Sir R. COOPER: What is the capital of that company?
Mr. MALONE: That can be quite easily ascertained. My point is that unemployment is a feature of our modern industrial system. The unprecedented unemployment with which we are confronted today is due to the international situation. It is due to the Treaty of Versailles. If you isolate Germany, refuse to make peace with Russia, and divide Eastern Europe and the Balkans into unnatural and illogical sections, cutting off the industries of one part from the markets of another, then you break up the whole trade situation in Europe, and unemployment is bound to continue. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence in the Cabinet to see that at the forthcoming International Conference at Genoa the whole of the Peace Treaty is revised.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Member will be out of order if he pursues that line of argument.
Mr. MALONE: It only serves to illustrate my point. In my constituency there is a great railway construction works. At present there are thousands unemployed in that area. In Europe there are 19,000,000 people about to die, because they cannot get locomotives and rolling stock to carry them the food supply which they want. In this country there are 2,000,000 out of work and starving, because they are not allowed to make the locomotives which are wanted by the 19,000,000. Why cannot they do so?
Mr. HOPKINSON: Because of the Communist system.
Mr. MALONE: It is not the Communist system. It is the capitalist system of the present Coalition Government which is keeping the nations of Europe at war one against the other. The unemployment has been increased by the engineering lock-out. The Minister of Labour, in his speech to-day, shed crocodile tears over the fact that the trade union funds were being seriously depleted. I wonder whether the reason why he did not intervene sooner in this lock-out was any desire on the part of the Government to deplete the election funds of the trade unions I We are told that we cannot afford to pay the unemployed greater doles, but I look to what we are paying the other unemployed helpers of the Government, the unemployed working white officers in a Government camp at Ismailia. We are paying a man £1 1s. 7d. a week, his wife £1 1s. 7d. a week, and each child 14s. 3½d. a week. A family of five, because they are anti-socialists, are being paid £4 6s. 0½d. a week, but in this country a similar family of five is lucky if it gets £1 2s. a week. Why cannot the working classes of this country at least be put on the same footing as these people in Egypt? I have only got to look at Government publications in the Vote Office to see that to-day 90,000 persons are in receipt of incomes exceeding £2,000, that 1,000 are in receipt of incomes over £40,000, and that 600 people have incomes of £50,000, that is to say, they are more or less millionaires, so that, although the country is in this terrible condition, at least we are not very badly off in millionaires. Do you really think we can afford this luxury I suggest that the Minister of Labour should get his axe to bear on some of these millionaires and divert the proceeds to the relief of the unemployed.
I want the Minister of Labour to confer with the Minister of Health in regard to the very serious situation in which many of our boards of guardians are finding themselves to-day. Sooner or later many boards of guardians will be absolutely bankrupt. In the West Ham area the rates are already 26s. 4d. in the £, and if more money has to be borrowed the rates will still go up. You cannot expect these poor industrial areas, where the millionaires are not situated, to go on increasing and piling up their rates. You must deal with the situation nationally.

1443
You will find the same problem confronting the boards of guardians in all the other areas in industrial districts. I will not say more on this matter, because it will be raised very soon by a deputation to the Prime Minister, and also on an occasion in this House; but on this Debate it is well to remind the Minister of Labour that he has some responsibility in this matter. The point I make to-night is that unemployment is, firstly, a part of the system of society we live under, and, secondly, it is due to the international situation; but are there no palliatives, no immediate remedies, for dealing with the unemployed in the way of giving them work? It is the most demoralising atmosphere into which millions of men are getting—bad for them, bad for their intellect, bad for their physique. There is work which they can be given, any amount of work waiting to be done, all over the country.
Where are these great housing schemes? In the Minister of Labour's opening remarks he foreshadowed that this unemployment will go on among well over a million for the next 18 months. Would not this be a very good opportunity for dealing with the housing problem? I believe that in a year or two, if it were really tackled in the way in which we tackled the munitions during the War, the whole of the housing troubles would be remedied. I suggest that the Minister of Labour should get some Army huts, erect them on the open spaces near our large industrial towns—in London I would erect them in Epping Forest and in the other surrounding parts—transport your population by streets, by blocks, by sections, put them in these huts, demolish the houses, build proper new houses, sanitary houses, with all the modern conveniences, put your population back into these new houses, deal with the next section, transport them into the huts, demolish that section, rebuild it, and so on, until you obliterated the whole of our slums from the North to the South of the country. There are other kinds of work as well. You have only got to go into the East End of London or in any working class district to see how bad the roads are. In the West End of London you will find highly polished macadam surfaces, in which you can see your face as if in a looking glass, but in the East End or the slum areas you will find great holes, which
1444
remind one of the Western Front in France, loose bricks, and other débris. There is any amount of work which can be done if the Minister of Labour would really tackle it.
There is the question of the schools. I do not want to develop all these schemes, but you have only to go into any school in some of the poorer districts of London and you will find them to be antique, out-of-date, unhealthy, insanitary, completely unsuited for the modern systems of education. I should suggest to the Minister of Labour that a good deal of work could be found in these schools. I was in a school this morning in my constituency, a terrible place, like a great barrack. They had to borrow things from a church to be used in this elementary school, containing 300 or 400 boys, and there was no ventilation, no sanitary arrangements, and no lighting. I need not develop these grievances. Where are these great electricity schemes of which we have heard I Where are these nine or ten power stations that were going to be erected all over England? The fact is that to-day I do not believe a single brick has been laid under that scheme, and as long as this Government remains in power I do not suppose that it ever will. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour owes his present position very largely to the work he did when he was a member of the teaching profession, and I regret to say that he has not done all ho might have done in the Cabinet for the teaching profession in regard to the recent cuts in education.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Bill.
Mr. MALONE: Here is an opportunity wherein the right hon. Gentleman can really regain the confidence of the people of this country. I ask him to try and realise what unemployment means. I ask him to go into some of these slum areas, to go down to the East End of London, only half-an-hour's journey from this House by Underground, or go into his own constituency and see the conditions under which the unemployed live. If he were to live amongst them and mix in their daily life, he would not come to the House with these tinkering, palliative measures which we have before us to-day. I urge him to adopt a more humane attitude towards the unemployed, and to I supplement this Bill, which is a half-

1445
measure, by wider, more comprehensive, more vital and far more generous methods.
Mr. LOCKER- LAMPSON: I should like to explain, if I may, that when I asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House earlier in the evening, because there were no Ministers present representing the Labour Department, I did not in the least intend it as a mark of disrespect to my right hon. Friend, or in the least as a personal criticism of him, because we all realise that he does attend this House whenever there is anything on regarding his Department, and, as a matter of fact, until then he had been in the House the whole time from 4 o'clock. My criticism was directed to the fact that in his absence the Parliamentary Secretary was not here, and there was nobody here representing the Treasury.
Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was on the point of starting for Rome in connection with the International Labour Organisation. I, myself, was away for a moment or two with my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson) discussing a dispute now concerning us all.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I only wanted to make it quite clear that I do not in any way offer a personal criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. Although everybody knows that this is a very important Bill, I think it is even more important than would appear at first sight, because, as I understand, for the first time a Bill on unemployment is being linked up directly with the Poor Law. Look at Clause 12, Sub-section (2), which says:
"Section twenty-seven of the principal Act (which relates to out-door relief) shall cease to have effect, and in determining whether outdoor relief shall or shall not be granted to a person in receipt of or entitled to receive benefit, the authority having power to grant the relief shall take into account the amount of the benefit."
That makes unemployment insurance a part of poor relief, and, so far as I know, it has never been put so plainly or at all in any Bill or Act of Parliament, that, practically, unemployment insurance is to be considered in the future as part of poor relief. If that really be the case, it is no use pretending that it is not.
1446
Therefore, in future you are going to have still further duplication of work between Poor Law relief on the one hand, and the unemployment insurance benefit on the other. This Bill also perpetuates the six months' scheme that was to last until May of this year. Sir Alfred Watson, the Government Actuary, in his Report makes it perfectly clear that these benefits and contributions will have to go on, not only until 1923, but until the scheme is solvent. He makes it quite clear that this scheme is not going to become solvent for several years after 1923, and, therefore, we are faced with these heavy contributions for an indefinite number of years. I am very sorry indeed, because I very much hoped by this time my right hon. Friend would have been able to bring forward some scheme of insurance by industry. I also hoped very much that he would have been able to produce by this time some kind of scheme to do away with all the duplication of the two schemes of health insurance on the one side, and unemployment insurance on the other. It is quite clear now that we shall not be able to get any simplification of this business until the present scheme is solvent, in an indefinite number of years' time, and really this duplication, this overlapping of the two schemes, is quite unnecessary. In the Geddes Committee Report there is a report sent by Sir Alfred Watson, the Government Actuary, to the Geddes Committee, in which he says with regard to the duplication of cards and stamps:
"It is a striking fact that since the unemployment system was extended, the contribution record of each of 12,000,000 people under compulsory insurance has been practically duplicated, the approved society keeping one account (since practically every worker insured against unemployment is also insured on the Health side) and the Ministry of Labour keeping the other. In my opinion, such administrative arrangements should be attempted, by co-operation, as to secure that one only of these records need be maintained, and with this, one contribution card used, instead of two."
What I want to ask my right hon. Friend is what really is the reason for the terrible delay which has taken place in simplifying this question of double cards and double stamps? Sir Alfred Watson presented his Report to the Geddes Committee on 5th December last year. The Government had the Geddes Committee's Report in their hands before Christmas, but the Committee of Inquiry set up by

1447
my right hon. Friend was not appointed until two months after the Report of the Geddes Committee to the Government, in spite of the Geddes Committee's recommendation that this simplification should be carried out forthwith. After all, the Government actuary, Sir Alfred Watson, must have had the whole process of simplification in his mind before he presented that Report to the Geddes Committee on the 5th December. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend what really has been the reason for the delay? This Committee which has been set up has been sitting for six weeks, and has not issued an Interim Report to the public, at all events.
Dr. MACNAMARA: If my hon. Friend would like to see it, I can send him a copy.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not want to go into all the reasons, but I understand that certain Labour representatives who were on that Committee talked so much, and delayed business so much, that they could not come to a decision at all on it for weeks and weeks. The delay means that if you could have come to a decision about these cards and stamps it could have come into operation on the first Monday in July, whereas the whole thing now is deferred, and nothing whatever can take place regarding this simplification of cards and stamps for another 12 months until July of next year. It also means, incidentally, that for another 12 months beyond what I believe necessary, you are going to have an enormous extra staff at the Ministry of Labour looking after all this duplication. I think also this duplication leads to very unfair claims on the funds. I have got here the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, Sir Malcolm Ramsay. He says:
"The benefits granted under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, extend to nearly all classes of employment included in the Health Insurance scheme, and the Regulations provide that applicants for unemployment benefit shall certify that they are not in receipt of sickness benefit."
Then he goes on to say:
"Although precautions have been taken, a number of cases have been discovered by the Ministry of Labour in which unemployment benefit or out-of-work donation has been issued concurrently with health benefit,
1448
and the increased scope of Unemployment Insurance naturally involves increased risk of concurrent issues."
It is only natural that this should take place. The waiting period for sickness benefit is three days. The waiting period for unemployment benefit is six days. Therefore, if a person who is unemployed gets a doctor's certificate that he is sick, of course he scores to the extent of these extra days. The Journal of the Iron and Steel Trades Federation shows this quite clearly in its pages. It says that the approved societies show that in three months of 1920 while trade was good that the sickness claims were very low, but the journal goes on to show that for the corresponding three months of 1921, when unemployment was rife, trade claims for sickness benefit were very high, and increased by no less than 25 per cent. In the present duplication it sometimes pays a man to claim for unemployment benefit and it sometimes pays him to claim for sickness benefit, so that a tricky person gets as much advantage as he possibly can. My point is this; If you can do something to do away with this duplication and combine the two systems in one, as I believe can quite easily be done, you do away with the whole of these abuses.
9.0 P.M.
I should like to get a little closer to this Bill. Some of its provisions are very unfair, and as probably we are going, I think, to have a very short time in the Committee stage, I should just like to mention three points. The first point is that married insured persons are getting much larger benefits under this Bill than unmarried persons. The normal benefit is 15s., and the married man gets, in addition to that, 5s. for his dependent wife and 1s. extra for each dependent child. [An HON. MEMBER: "As it should be!"] It may be perfectly fair. I do not dispute that aspect, but my point is that you are now making an unmarried person, who gets lower benefit, pay a heavy contribution for the benefit of the married ones. I do not think that is at all fair. This provision was put in force in 1921 under the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Act, and it was only applied for six months. But it is now going to be extended, not only to 1923, but for an indefinite number of years until the fund becomes solvent, so that for an indefinite number of years you are making the un-

1449
married person pay a very heavy rate for the benefit of the married man. That is a very unfair proposal.
The second point is this: Under this scheme the person with a low rate of unemployment has to pay for the person with a high rate of unemployment. For instance, clerks and shop assistants have a low rate of unemployment and they pay just the same rate of contribution as the engineer, the dock worker, the transport worker, and a person engaged in the furniture trades, where there is a very high rate of unemployment. In the Actuary's Report, Sir Alfred Watson shows the tremendous difference there is between these various trades in the matter of unemployment. The percentage in shop assistants is 2·8, while that of the trades coming under the 1911 Act, the engineers and so forth, have an unemployment rate of 6·5. The Report shows that the dock trades have a rate of 10, the transport workers and people engaged in the furniture trades of 6, and general labourer 10—an enormous difference.
Mr. N. MACLEAN: What year is that?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not know, but the Actuary gives the latest figures in his possession.
Mr. MACLEAN: After the War?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Oh, yes.
Mr. MACLEAN: There was then heavy employment.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I agree with that. But to my mind—to pursue my point—the unfairness to the unmarried man is cumulative. You make the unmarried clerk not only pay for the married man's extra benefit, but you also make him pay for a far higher rate of unemployment than his own. Finally, there is in this Bill absolutely no encouragement for the good employer, who, during a period of slack trade, keeps his work together, and his men, it may be, on half time, gives them a certain amount of wages, as against a bad employer, who, when the slightest risk of unemployment appears, sacks the whole of his men and closes down till times get good again. My right hon. Friend will remember that in the 1911 Act a rebate was given to the employer who kept his men in work. That was an admirable bit of finance. It
1450
encouraged the employers to keep their men at work as long as possible. That has been abolished, and I think it is a great pity. My right hon. Friend has got a Committee sitting at the present moment to inquire, I believe, into the question of insurance by industry. I should like to suggest to him that he goes much wider. I should like to see a Royal Commission, not with narrow, but with very wide terms of reference to inquire not only into the question of insurance by industry, but into the whole question of overlapping between unemployment and health insurance, and the whole relations existing at the present time between the Poor Law and Unemployment Insurance. I believe until we deal far more fundamentally with the problem than it has really been dealt with up till now, we shall never got the proper value for the enormous sums of money that we spend.
Mr. SWAN: I would not have intervened had it not been that the bulk of my constituents are out of work, and have been for 12 months. One of the things which are very disquieting in these proposals to myself and my constituents is that we see no possibility of the continuation of benefit to these people. I hope I may get something from the right hon. Gentleman which will be some satisfaction to these people who live in Weardale, Teesdale, Barnard Castle, and so on. Their unemployment benefit expires next week. I should like to ask if there is anything in the way of the continuation of benefits to these people? Have they to be left to cold charity, or resort to the workhouse, as suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I made it clear that for the people whose benefits expired on the 5th April the last payment would be the 7th April. They will not get any payment on the following Friday, but on the 21st, which is the Friday after, they will get the three days as part benefit.
Mr. SWAN: And will it continue?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, for five weeks.
Mr. SWAN: Even that brief period is almost tragic in the case of men who for 12 months have only had the assistance of the unemployment dole, and who have exhausted all their savings. I may be

1451
rather old-fashioned, and I have not the international vision possessed by many of my colleagues, but I believe it is possible to do something much better than what is being proposed by the Government. There are many poor people who are not going to benefit by this Measure at all. The proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) are not going to promote the introduction of unemployed measures of this description. They tell us that we have to bring down the cost of production. If that principle were true as far as the mines of this country are concerned, there would have been an abundance of demand for miners; but the very fact of cutting down wages to the minimum instead of increasing work for the miners, has actually diminished employment in the mines. It has destroyed the home markets and this has prevented other work going on because people have not the spending power to buy what they require.
It has been suggested that we must put Central Europe right. That is part of the great problem we have to deal with, but I think something can be done at our own doors. On this question I think the Members of the Labour party ought to have been consulted more than they have been, and their advice should have been taken, and then something more would have been done to mitigate unemployment in this country. There is much useful work which could be found to reduce the large number of men who are out of work, and it is work of a lucrative and productive character. After this Bill has been passed we shall be asked to consider the wisdom of granting loans to East India in order to develop that country, and within a week or two we shall be finding £50,000,000 to develop the resources of India. That may be quite just and proper, but I think it would be much more in the interests of this nation if, instead of paying out doles for unemployment, we could find these men some useful productive work on which the money would be better spent, and which would at the same time add to the dignity and independence of our people, instead of humiliating them by doles.
In the pigeon-holes of our Government Departments there are no end of splendid
1452
schemes, which have been arranged by experts and men of special ability, dealing with reconstructive work, and they were framed in order that when the War was finished we should be able to absorb all the men who returned to this country in useful employment. All those schemes have now been relegated to the limbo of lost rubbish. Hon. Members opposite take delight in lecturing Members of the Labour party, but I want to suggest to them what can be done. We want to see them get out those schemes of reconstruction in the possession of the Board of Trade, and apply them in our constituencies. Hon. Members opposite wish to keep all those schemes still-born instead of allowing them to come to life.
There are schemes under which electricity supplies could be undertaken, dynamos could be established, and a large number of men could be found employment by the construction of transmission lines for the supply of electricity which would give heat, light and comfort to people in those particular areas. That could be undertaken, and it would be far more valuable and profitable than spending the money in doles to the unemployed. In the past, when we have made these proposals to the Board of Trade, we have got no response, although there was plenty of energy displayed in these matters during the War. We hear hon. Members speaking a good deal now about what is necessary for economy and to produce initiative and inventions. One wonders where those hon. and learned Gentlemen have been living. It would seem almost as if they had simply stepped out of a picture. We have got the men, we have the ability, but there is no coordination in the Government Departments to utilise that dynamic energy and organised ability which we possessed in 1917 and 1918. That would assist my hon. Friend opposite.
Mr. HOPKINSON: Not a bit.
Mr. SWAN: Once we get the cost of production reduced, it would help the nation a lot.
Mr. HOPKINSON: It would not help me a bit.
Mr. SWAN: I am not referring to the hon. Member individually; I am referring to the nation, and I say the adoption of this course would also prevent our

1453
people continuing in the demoralised state in which they are to-day. It is said that we on these benches can only criticise the Government; that we cannot make reconstruction proposals. I think I have made one such proposal. The next thing I would like done is to see some of the schemes which we are going to be asked within the next week or two to put into force in India and in the Colonies attempted in this country also, for they, too, would assist in reducing the cost of production. We want to see in my constituency light railways which would open up fertile lands and give employment to men on the land. It is true that landlords might pocket the profits, but even then employment would be found for men, the needs of the nation would be supplied, and that would be far better than for the men to continue wasting their time and living on doles. If I were to talk about the taxation of land values no doubt I would be ruled out of order, but here again is another constructive proposal which we have made. We think it would be far better to open up our country. Although we are the most intensely organised country in Europe, yet there are parts of the land immensely rich in coal, limestone, lead, silver, and even gold which have not yet been touched. They have been silent since the days of Adam, yet there are to be found all the minerals that we want to assist us in our industrial concerns. Here, again, it would be possible to reduce the cost of production, for we would be getting minerals from our own land which we now import from foreign lands. At the same time, work would be found for our men, our railway communications could be shortened to a very great extent and vastly improved, and an enormous saving could be effected in the working of our mines. It surely would be far better to employ our men on work of this character than to allow them to remain unemployed, thereby bringing bankruptcy to the boards of guardians.
To-day I received a resolution which shows the exasperation felt by local authorities. They suggest that the Government instead of carrying out their unemployed schemes should assist the local authorities the more effectively to cope with the unemployed problem in their own areas. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will take some notice of that suggestion. In my I
1454
own area, in the county of Durham, the guardians complain that they have to shoulder the bulk of the liabilities due to unemployment, while an enormous amount of wealth is taken out of the area by people who render absolutely no service to the community. They simply take the royalties out of the area and do not contribute a penny for local expenditure. In the last quarter of last year in the county of Durham £234,776 went to the royalty owners and not one penny was paid by them to the local rates. It is I agree with hon. Members around me a shame that that should be so. There ought to be legislation passed by this House to carry out the promise made by the Government 15 years ago whereby royalties could be taken over. If that were done then the local authorities would be better able to deal with their own problems, they would be better able to organise labour in order that their needs might be supplied, and the overburdened ratepayer would as a result be relieved. There is only one other observation I want to make.
Sir G. RENWICK: Hear, hear.
Mr. SWAN: I am sorry I am tiring the hon. Member for Newcastle Central (Sir G. Renwick). If he thinks that my proposals are not likely to solve the question, I am sure I will be prepared to listen patiently to any suggestion be may have to make. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City, who seconded the rejection of the Bill, suggested that the Minister of Labour ought to assert himself and to tell the House that the time has come when unemployment doles should cease. I am certain my hon. Friend opposite will say "Hear, hear!" to that. The right hon. Baronet also suggests that working men should be told that the only avenue open to them leads to the workhouse. Some of us have had long experience in the administration of the Poor Law. We know the cost of maintaining families. We know that what is given as unemployment benefit for the maintenance of a family does not represent one-tenth of the sum which it would cost to maintain that same family in the workhouse. Not so many months ago the cost of maintaining paupers per head was not less than 30s. a week and yet we have a financier well known in the City of London coming down to this

1455
House and telling us we had better maintain families in the workhouse rather than pay the much smaller unemployment dole. If his policy were adopted the workhouses would soon be filled with the families of men who are out of work through no fault of their own. What will the British public say, men who have worked and are thrown on the market, when they see the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City, and that his only policy, after his experience in this House and his specialised knowledge, is, "Go to the workhouse!"? If there is anything that can fan the flame of revolt in this country, it is recommendations of that description. My hon. Friend said this was bound to fail. It is not going to solve the unemployed problem. We know that. I agree with my hon Friend the Member for East Leyton (Mr. L. Malone), that as long as you have a system of private ownership of the means of life based on wage labour you are bound to have armies of unemployed.
Sir R. COOPER: What about Russia?
Mr. SWAN: Had the blockade on Russia not been kept on there would not have been an army of unemployed in this country. The more experience we get, and the more speeches we listen to, the more we realise that private ownership of the means of life is a terrible scourge on humanity. We see how the more the workers work the more wealth there is produced, and the sooner are the workers out of work and wages. These learned gentlemen say that what we want is inventions. We get inventions in the mines and factory, and what does the machine do? Instead of adding to the amount of employment, it throws men out of work. That idea of these learned gentlemen is not going to assist a solution of the question. Labour-saving machinery is coming along, we have seen it introduced in the factories and other places, and we find men—not only skilled workmen—thrown out of work and boys and girls doing the work that skilled trained men formerly had to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It is a shame that these men should be out of work, and that the more wealth produced the greater is their poverty. We have tried, with all our lack of opportunities, to find a solution, and have made proposals
1456
whereby the unemployed can be absorbed. It is obvious that private ownership cannot absorb these men. It has failed to do so, and we suggest that, seeing that private ownership has failed to absorb all the men able and willing to work, it is the duty of the Government to provide the wherewithal for these men, who cannot find work through no fault of their own, to secure a grant which will enable them to maintain their families in decency without going to the workhouse or subjecting themselves to the humiliation of accepting charity from people on whom they do not wish to be dependent. I hope we shall have a scheme which will give more consideration to the men out of work. I know of one family where there are nine persons, and because there are two sons who can work, like many more, they have been called up before the Employment Exchange and the officers have told them that they have abundance on which to keep their family—£1 18s. Because there are two sons who can work they are told they are not making legitimate efforts to find work, and therefore cannot get the unemployment dole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It is a shame, because they are men willing to work and who want to be directed to where work can be found for them. I hope the Minister of Labour will see that in the administration of this unemployment dole the men who are entitled to it will get further consideration.
Mr. SUTTON: I hope the House will forgive my intervention for a few moments. It was not my intention to speak to-night, but I felt I could not allow this opportunity to go by without offering a few observations upon this important question. I have been asked whether this was my maiden speech, and I have been told by other Members of this House that it would not be a maiden speech, as I am an old Member of the House. Having come fresh from a constituency where this unemployed question plays a very prominent part, I ought to offer a few words on the subject. In the division I have the honour to represent in this House we have a large number of unemployed people, and as one walks about the division one wonders what is going to happen in the future. During my absence from this House depression in trade has taken place very,

1457
very much indeed, and one reads, even from Cabinet Ministers, of over 2,000,000 unemployed persons and nearly another half-million of persons working on short-time. One reads also, and hears in this House—for the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) practically asserted this afternoon—that these people who are unemployed have no right to take the unemployment dole. I want to say to the hon. Member that these people pay for the benefit they receive. One comes in contact with other people who have the idea that these persons are getting charity by accepting the unemployment dole. I say, nothing of the kind. These people are having to pay for it by having it deducted from their wage each week, and therefore when they are unfortunate enough to be unemployed they are doing the right thing by accepting what, in my opinion, belongs to them. I, personally, should like something other than the unemployment dole meted out to these people. My hon. Friend who has just sat down mentioned that if these people were in the workhouse it would cost much more than they receive with their 15s. and 20s. unemployment pay. If these men took to doing something against the law and were sent to prison it would cost over double the amount that they receive in unemployment pay at the present time to keep them in prison. There are only three ways, in my opinion, in which a person can live at the present time. One is by working and receiving a decent standard wage for that work; another is by stealing, being sent to prison, and in that way becoming well housed and decently kept; and the third is by begging. If he begs he is again breaking the law and is sent to prison, but at the same time he is at least assured of as good a living as he is getting when ho is receiving his unemployment dole. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about his family?"] If he has a family, they will be looked after as they have to be looked after to-day with the unemployment dole. The 15s. a week, with the 5s. for his wife and the 1s. for each child, does not keep them to-day.
In Lancashire alone we have thousands of miners who are working four and five days a week on the surface and down the mine, and who have wives and families to keep, and, when they go home with their wages at the week-end, they have not sufficient to keep them,
1458
and have to apply to the Poor Law Union to get their wages augmented so that they can continue during the week. In my opinion, that is a disgraceful way to treat men who have to go down the mine to produce the commodity which we were told, when it was badly wanted, was the key commodity of this country. We were told by the Prime Minister that without that commodity we should not have been able to win the War. It was that commodity which produced shot and shell, and enabled ships to sail, and the Prime Minister told us, at a meeting in London, that Great Britain and her Allies would never forget the miners of this country for what they had done during the War. To-day, I make bold to say, the mining industry is the most sweated industry in this country. We do not want doles; we want work for the men, and the women as well. I remember that in 1905, when I was a member of the Manchester City Council, we had a large army of unemployed in Manchester, and we applied to borrow £50,000. We were successful in getting that, and work was found for a large number of the unemployed—not useless work, but good work; and to-day you can see the results of the work that was done in 1905 in a number of our Manchester parks. Lakes were made and roads were made, and that could be done to-day if the Government were determined that something should be done for these people other than giving them doles.
The hon. Member for Mossley practically told us that the workers of this country would have to work almost for a handful of rice, or for the wage that the German people are receiving to-day. If, after winning the War, we cannot devise something better than this—and I believe we could if we were in earnest about it—if we have brought our people to this state of things, then God help ns! Manchester is asking for 20,000 houses at the present time. I could take hon. Members to places in Manchester where there are 18 and 19 persons living in one house, which is a scandal. If the Government had been in earnest in building the houses originally promised, the unemployment question would have been, I will not say completely solved, but solved to a large extent by finding employment in the building trade alone.

1459
Men who have been in the Army come to me asking, is it possible to get a house? They had to give up their homes to join the Army, and, now that they are back again, are unable to get houses, and many of them have had to go and live, as they said, with their mothers-in-law. Some of them detested the Army, but they said that, much as they detested the Army, they detested a great deal more living with their mothers-in-law. These people are pleading for homes, and that state of things, I say, is a disgrace after the speeches that we used to hear from the Prime Minister. I remember being in Manchester when he made his great speech previous to the signing of the Armistice. He told us that a million men had been rejected for the Army in this country on account of their physical disability, on account of having to live in slums all their lives, on account of receiving low wages. And yet, now that there is a time for doing away with slums and finding employment on house building, the Government refuse to take up their scheme.
I hope that something will be done in the direction of getting municipalities to make roads. I know very well that in Manchester alone thousands more men could be put on roadmaking, which would be of benefit to posterity, if the Government would only assist. In that City, as I have said, 20,000 houses are wanted, and work could have been found for some thousands of men in the building trade, had the Government only taken notice of the Labour Members of this House in the last Parliament. The Government were warned constantly in 1915, 1916 and 1917 to make preparations for the evil day which we now see upon us, and, had they taken heed of those warnings, the unemployment question might have been in a different position. I appeal to the Minister of Labour to get his colleagues to do something to do away with the dole, although, when people are out of work, they are entitled to it. I know that nothing would please the hon. Member for Mossley except bringing these people down to the lowest level. I have read from time to time of his getting up in this House and telling the House what a great employer he is. I believe he has made great sacrifices, and I am not going to say anything against that, but at the same time he ought to take a stand for
1460
these people, because he knows that close to where he resides at the present time there is a colliery which has gone bankrupt, and there are thousands of men unemployed in that district at the present time who have to appeal for Poor Law relief. I hope that something more will be done for these men in the future than has been done in the past.
Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The House will welcome the return of the hon. Member who has just addressed us, but he will excuse me from following him in his arguments. The Debate to-day, touching, as it does, the humane and economic interests of the State, has naturally roamed over many subjects, but one or two questions have been raised to which I am anxious to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour. Reference was made to the question of nurses coming under the Bill, and it will be within the recollection of the Minister that, during the Debates on the last Unemployment Bill, several hon. Members drew his attention to the large classes of the community who are not presently under the provisions of the Bill. I would therefore ask him if it would be possible to circulate, at a later stage, information as to the number of people in employment to-day in various trades who are not within the provisions of this Bill. Nurses have been mentioned—
Dr. MACNAMARA: Nurses are within the Bill.
Sir G. COLLINS: I understood during the last Debate on the subject that there were other classes of the community receiving weekly or monthly wages who were not under the provisions of the Act, and it might be for the convenience of the House as a whole if the Minister would circulate some information on that point, so that we should be in a position to know who were to-day working in trades or professions which were exempt from the Bill. The other point I am anxious to draw attention to has also been referred to. Unemployment exists in some districts, and does not press so severely in others. The burden of Poor Law relief in a residential district is much lighter than in some industrial districts. During the last few months this burden has been increasing to a great degree, and hon. Members in every quarter of the House, I have no doubt, have been pressed by parish councils and

1461
public bodies to bring this point before the attention of the Government. The inequality between certain country districts and industrial areas, say on the Clyde or the Tyne, is very great. We hope the Government at a later stage of the Session will endeavour to cope with the inequalities which the present period of unemployment has brought in its train.
I rise to support the Bill. I think the maintenance of our people is the first charge on the revenues of the State. I agree that there may be differences of opinion as to the amount which should be paid, but that some provision should be made is, I think, generally recognised in most quarters of the House. The previous Bills were based on expectations which, unfortunately, have not matured. I have taken some trouble to analyse the Bill introduced during the early months of 1921, and in June of last year the right hon. Gentleman's expectations were based on a million and a quarter being permanently out of work, while we know that that estimate was largely exceeded. Then we come to November. Here, again, his estimates have been largely exceeded. This Bill itself is based on forecasts of the future. I sincerely hope they will not be realised. I will not endeavour to elaborate the causes which have produced this unemployment, but until they are removed I fear that his expectations once again will not be realised. I am anxious to draw attention to one point in connection with this Bill. The Minister is going to increase his borrowing powers. Could he tell us the total deficit that is to be met by borrowing?
Dr. MACNAMARA: At present I have exhausted £14,000,000.
Sir G. COLLINS: And he is going to take provision to borrow up to £30,000,000. Is that a fair thing to do in the interests of the State? Has not the time arrived when borrowing for any purpose should be discontinued? Examination of the book by Gustav Cassel, an economist highly spoken of by the Prime Minister, reveals the interesting point that he condemns borrowing for the purpose of finding money to pay out-of-work grants. I know that Members of the Government pay little attention to criticisms from this quarter of the House on the subject. We have painful recollections of their inability to appreciate
1462
the economic arguments which we advance from time to time, but on this occasion I bring to the attention of the Minister a point made by Mr. Gustav Cassel that borrowing for the purpose in view is not justifiable, and that the money which this Bill requires should come out of the annual revenue of the State. The result of this borrowing is inflation. It maintains high prices and creates unemployment.
Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Is it not a fact that this same professor also brought to our notice that excessive deflation itself brought about the unemployment which we are trying to cure?
Sir G. COLLINS: I agree that the book deals with that particular subject, but if the hon. Member will direct his attention to borrowing for the specific purpose under review this evening—I have not the exact page in the book to direct his attention to, or the exact words—he will find that what I have said is absolutely correct, that this well-known economist condemns borrowing for the purpose of finding money for subsidies of any sort and money for unemployment purposes. I think the money is necessary, but it should come out of the coffers of the State—out of the annual revenue of the State. I was interested to hear before the coming financial year had started that the Minister is going to introduce a Supplementary Estimate.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I gave notice of it.
Sir G. COLLINS: I know. Two or three weeks ago the Secretary of State for War told the House that Supplementary Estimates in the future would hardly arise. I am anxious to draw attention to the complete diversity of view between Members of the Government on this all-important question. I have made a rough calculation, and I think this new Supplementary Estimate for the coming year will amount to £3,000,000 to £4,000,000. So we start once again the old tale of Supplementary Estimates before the beginning of the financial year. What the end of the financial year will bring us experience and time will only reveal. Whether we shall be forced to find a further £150,000,000 for Supplementary Estimates, as the experience has been this year and in past years, only time will show. But I hope the Minister

1463
will carry the Bill through, and in doing BO would it be possible for him to co-ordinate in some degree the work of parish councils in Scotland and the Employment Exchanges? My attention has been drawn by these bodies to overlapping—to the considerable expense which is placed on the shoulders of the ratepayers or the coffers of the State, through two sets of officials administering grants for the same purpose. I agree that the problem is difficult and will not be easily solved, in view of the vital necessity of carrying the parish councils with us in this matter in order to secure the assistance they have so readily granted in the past, while they feel and know that unnecessary expense is being incurred which checks their zeal and ardour in this respect. I have only risen for two minutes to address these questions to the Minister of Labour, and although we shall move Amendments in the Committee stage of this Bill we hope the Bill will become law.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I desire to thank the House sincerely for the reception it has given to this Bill. I am making a very heavy demand on the employer, on the working people, and on the State—demands which, I had to announce, would involve a Supplementary Estimate, and I take the earliest opportunity to say so, being myself a constitutional financial purist. I am very glad to see that the hon. Gentleman's dislike of Supplementary Estimates does not cause him to refuse to support this Bill. I am afraid I am making a grave demand upon him when I ask him to support the Bill which, to some extent, rests upon the first Supplementary Estimate of the year. If I may summarise the Debate, I may say that here we are in a great emergency which has been long protracted and of which we do not see the end. For this you must make provision. We are agreed that provision shall be made, that we must do our best to see that it is properly administered, to conserve it to those who really need it; and as trade improves we shall try to get back once I more to the true principles of insurance against unemployment. That, I think, is a broad summary of the discussion to which I had the pleasure of listening, and I admit it would be the desire of the House that we should carefully note the experience we are now going through
1464
during this long and distressing time, so that, when we get to the period of normality again, we may be able to frame a permanent scheme of insurance which shall find a lasting place amongst our various instruments of social provision and social service. Those are the general observations I have to make and now I take up the Debate in detail. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) took up a point in regard to the trade dispute disqualification which, as I know, has excited so much interest among my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite that I will deal with it first. The trade dispute disqualification rests on Section 8 (1) of the Insurance Act. It owed its origin to the very first Insurance Act of 1911, and it has been a subject of controversy and dispute ever since that time. Let me read the form of the main Act. An insured contributor
"who has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed, shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit so long as the stoppage of work continues, except in the case where he has has during the stoppage of work become bonâ fide employed elsewhere in the occupation which he usually follows or has become regularly engaged in some other. Where separate branches of work, which are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises, are in any case carried on in separate departments on the same premises, each of those departments shall, for the purposes of this provision, be deemed to be a separate factory or workshop, or separate premises, as the case may be."
10.0 P.M.
Here we have men who have nothing to do with the dispute. They did not promote it, but because of their association with those who are responsible for it when the strike or lock-out takes place these men have to come out and they are disqualified from receiving benefit. There have been many discussions in order to arrive at the line of equity between the parties in this difficult matter. My last proposal was that representatives of employers and of labour should sit down together and devise something that would be fair to both sides. If I agreed that their proposals were practicable, I should not necessarily put difficulties in the way in that respect. But nothing has emerged and I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking that I could amend this ancient form in the Bill to which I am now asking the House to give a Second Reading. As regards the lock-out now in progress,

1465
the men who are actually locked out are disqualified from receiving benefit, and all those working in the same establishment, whether skilled or unskilled, who become unemployed as the result of the lock-out will be disqualified. If any doubt or question arises, there is an appeal to the Court of Referees, and finally, if so desired, and if necessary, to the Umpire. His decision is final, and that ends the matter.
Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: They are distinctly left out in the Bill, so that it would be perfectly useless for them to appeal to the Umpire.
Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I am dealing with the trade disqualification set out in the main permanent Act, Section 8 (1)—the question which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. It is a different question entirely. I was going on to say that if there are any works which are quite distinct from those in which the lock-out takes effect and are wholly or partially shut on account of the lock-out, the men thus becoming unemployed will not be in any way disqualified for benefit. There were a number of engineers who were out of work before this because of the lack of employment. If they had been receiving unemployment benefit, and if it is not exhausted, they will go on receiving it.
Mr. N. MACLEAN: No, they are not.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I say if there were any engineers who were on unemployment benefit before this dispute arose, if they have not exhausted the benefit, they will continue to receive it.
Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that a circular has been sent to the Employment Exchanges that men who have been drawing unemployment benefit for six weeks, prior to 16th March, are to receive notice that they are not to receive benefit on the ground that they are affected by the lock-out?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am dealing with the case of men in the engineering trade who were wholly unemployed before the dispute arose. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby called attention to the conditions under which the last extension of six weeks was granted. One of those conditions was this, the extension of benefit—I said in the Regulation on 22nd February, when
1466
the six weeks' benefit was awarded—would not be granted—here is the point—to single men and women who are maintained wholly or mainly by their relatives. That is one of the conditions, but there are others. My right hon. Friend rather dissented. These funds make up a large additional tax, and I am entitled to say, in the case of the young fellow living at home, "I think there are others who need this more than you." Then, said my right hon. Friend, putting the case of a single young fellow or girl at home with the parents, "But the parents themselves may be wholly unemployed. Where are you then?" I say, then, that the answer is plain under the rule, that a single man or woman maintained wholly or mainly by the relatives cannot apply. If there are no means of maintenance in a house, then the rule does not apply. If the parents are unemployed, a young person cannot be wholly or partly maintained at that time. I hope it is clear, therefore, that the contention that a young person so deprived of benefit in that manner is not correct. My right hon. Friend said, "You are taking their money and not giving them the benefit to which they are entitled." I am doing nothing of the sort. There are two classes of benefit in this Bill. There is the permanent covenanted benefit, to which people are entitled by reason of their payment of contribution and other qualifications; there is the emergency benefit, which I have been able to make for a long time past, and which I am continuing because of the emergency. Many of these people who will get that may never have paid a penny, and certainly a great many will not be qualified under previous contributions, under the permanent scheme. What I am dealing with is not the covenanted benefit but the uncovenanted benefit. Therefore I am not taking people's money and refusing to give them what they have paid for. There are two sides to the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), if I understood him rightly, suggested that the rate of benefit might be increased to relieve local rates. I have strained this Insurance Act pretty considerably, though I will take care that I do not break it. I consider it to be a valuable piece of machinery, but if I were to adopt my hon. Friend's proposal I should like to know

1467
where the Insurance Scheme would be. I do not know how you are going to adopt his scheme in an Insurance Act, That I should introduce a series of benefits proportionate to the burdens upon the local rates is, I think, quite impracticable. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) brought up a point about the casual worker. He asks if a man has been unemployed for six days, and he works for four hours after working hours on the sixth day, does the sixth day count as a day of unemployment? Under Section 7 of the 1920 Act the sixth day cannot count as a day of unemployment, but within the existing law I have undertaken to see if we cannot make this continuity rule a little less harsh. I invited, a considerable time ago, the National Joint Council of the Transport Industry to nominate a committee to sit around a table and see whether, within the law, we could not arrange this continuity rule to be a little less onerous. The men represented here have not done so badly from this Insurance Act.
I asked the National Joint Council of the transport industry to nominate a committee, so that we could see if anything could be done to case the situation. I am waiting for those nominations.
I turn next to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson). He referred to the delay in getting to work on one of the first of the Geddes Committee recommendations. He stated that there had been no report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the matter. The second interim report is now before me, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy. We wished to see whether it was necessary to have two cards and two sets of stamps, and to find whether in this way any economy could be effected which would at the same time prevent people having to carry about so many cards. I will read the last two paragraphs of the report. Here are the Committee's findings on that subject:
"The problem is a complicated one, and a great many factors have to be taken into account. Certain of the modifications which at present appear to us to be essential for the purpose of enabling a combined card to be adopted could not be made without amending legislation.
In these circumstances we have come to the conclusion that, whatever may be our ultimate recommendation, it is not possible
1468
to bring a combined card into use so soon as next July, and we think it desirable to bring this conclusion to your notice without delay."
That was signed by Sir Alfred Watson, the chairman, and members of the Committee. The hon. Member for Wood Green also made to-day a point which he made the other night on the question of amalgamating unemployment and health insurance machinery. The hon. Member suggested that there was some obstruction being placed in the way by the Ministry of Labour. In the Debate on the Vote on Account on 13th March he said:
"I understand that on that Committee the representatives of the Ministry of Labour are doing their utmost to delay a decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1922; col. 1862, Vol. 151.]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said in reply:
"The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was some delay or obstruction on the part of the representative of the Ministry of Labour. I am quite sure that is not a fact, and I must repudiate the suggestion at once. I am sorry the hon. Member for Wood Green is not in his place. If he were, I should be forced to ask him to particularise a little more. So far as the Ministry of Labour is concerned there has been given from the first the most cordial support and co-operation in the examination of the situation to see whether a joint working is possible, and if it is possible, as I hope it may be, I feel certain the suggested savings of the Geddes Report can be effected. I feel it my duty on behalf of the Ministry of Labour to make these two points clear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1922; cols. 1905–6; Vol. 151.]
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is only fair to myself to say that I was not in my place when that answer was given.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I thought that was the explanation. If the Committee will give us any suggestion which will help us to practical economies I shall be the first to take it up. I now come to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray). He called attention to the rather difficult question of the share fishermen and the women engaged for periods of time in the fish-curing industry. He did not state the case quite accurately. He suggested that these men during a long period of time work as labourers, that they are only seasonal fishermen, and that we take their money but do not give them any benefit. That is not correct. They get whatever

1469
covenanted, benefit they are entitled to, and nobody can withdraw it from them when they the eligible for it. The uncovenanted benefit, the free benefit, is only to be paid if the applicant is normally in insurable employment. Share fishermen are not in an insurable employment, and therefore cannot get free benefit, but whatever they pay for, during the time they are not engaged in this particular avocation, they will certainly get, and as a matter of fact, they do get such covenanted benefits. My hon. Friend also asked as to the benefits paid to women engaged in the fish curing industry. The cases which he has in mind, I think, are those of women who only work as fish curers during the season. During the rest of the year they are occupied doing house work. It would clearly be wrong to pay unemployment benefit to these women outside the season, and during a time when they are at home engaged in ordinary house work.
As regards the case of the nurses, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Stratford Division (Mr. L. Lyle) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastern Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone), I may say that nursing for the sick, including mental nursing, is now an insurable employment. Under the existing Act contributions have to be paid and objection is taken to this, because it is stated unemployment practically does not exist. That is a view which has been held by the hospitals and the nurses themselves all along, and I have no doubt that the hospitals, being voluntary organisations, find it very difficult to pay these contributions which are, naturally, now very heavy. They point out, as also do the nurses, that neither should pay because, as has been said, the measure of unemployment is not very great, but the nurses are not unanimous on that. The National Union of Trained Nurses in a letter to me, dated 8th November last, state:
"While we consider that the existing arrangements for administering the Insurance Act for nurses are totally unsuitable, yet we do not consider that exemption would be a wise departure."
I daresay there is possibly some exception to having to go to the Exchange and stand at a counter, and all the rest of it, on the part of the nurses. I am afraid the volume of work on our shoulders is so great, that even if our premises lent themselves to it—and they do not, they are
1470
nothing to be proud of, in a good many cases, from the point of view of structure—but even if we had the premises, I do not think we could make special provision for special payments in special circumstances, to a special class, though I am very glad to be as obliging as I can in all directions, because I find it a very good rule. Those who are represented by the Member for Stratford do represent a big body of opinion, but I will look into the question and see what is the volume of opinion on the other side. I recognise that both in the hospitals and the institutes for nurses, and in the National Union of Trained Nurses there is a large volume of opinion asking for exemption from this scheme. At any rate they can administer the scheme themselves and have their own benefits without going to the Exchanges. They can have their own scheme under Section 17, but that would involve an addition to the benefits from their own funds, and I have no doubt these ladies are not so too well paid that they can make this addition from their own funds, so that probably Section 17 is not the way out. When Section 18, the provision for contracting out, once more becomes available, and that door is once more open, that is another way by which they might be met, but that door cannot be opened for a long time yet.
All I can say at the moment is that I will consider with very great care whether the case for the insurance of nurses rests upon so slight a measure of unemployment as not to justify the collection of these contributions from the two sides. I should prefer not to be pressed to give an answer to-night, but it must be obvious to everybody that if I begin to open this door there are lots of others who will come and say, "We are not going to be unemployed; why should we pay?" on both sides of the account. Well, I want their money, but when they represent people who, I agree, are doing a great social service, and to whom it is perhaps not possible to pay a larger salary, I will consider whether I can take that deduction from them, having regard to what is, as I understand from my hon. Friend, the very small measure of unemployment which comes their way. I will carefully look

1471
into it, as I say, but I hope I shall not be pressed further than that to-night.
There is one other point, a very considerable point, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) and by other hon. Members. It is shortly this, that work is better than what are called doles—we all agree with that—and here you are providing in this scheme, for 15 months, £60,000,000 of benefits. It is quite true the great bulk of it comes from the employers and the employed persons, but I am paraphrasing and summarising the argument. Is it not a pity, it is argued, that you cannot get some work done for that £60,000,000? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That sounds very commonsense and very reasonable, but let us have a look at the matter a little more closely. My hon. Friends opposite cheered that, but relief works are not very easy to organise. Very often it is not work the locality wants to be taken up, and I have been told to-day that very often it is not very productive work. What my hon. Friends opposite would do would be to start productive factories; they would start manufactures in productive factories in competition with existing industries. That is the broad proposition. All that you would do would be, pro tanto, to put a similar number out of employment.
Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: No; they could exchange their products.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I have heard that argument. What is quite certain is that your costs of production would be very much higher than under ordinary conditions, and I contend that all that would happen would be that A would be unemployed because you found work for B. I am certain that that would be of no practical good. Then says the hon. Member for Ladywood, "Why do you not take the 15s. unemployment benefit, pay it over to the municipality which is finding relief work, and let that be a contribution towards the wage which the man will ultimately get? The same with the guardians. Why do not they pay over to the municipality for relief work their quota, and then we shall get something for the £60,000,000?" Not only this £60,000,000, but the £60,000,000 which someone has suggested as being likely to be drawn from the guardians in a similar time. I agree that
1472
that sounds a perfectly sound, feasible and reasonable proposition. Let us look at it for a moment. If the 15s. is a benefit, the man has paid a contribution for it, and it has got to be paid to him when he is out of a job. It may or may not be a right policy to give the municipality that 15s. towards the payment of wages, but you cannot do it under the Insurance Act. The man is entitled to the 15s.
Then I have heard it said—I am not surprised, because it is an attractive proposition—ever since the subject came upon us, from those who are conducting ordinary industry—I think the first time I heard it was from people who came from Bristol—"Here is an industry which is languishing. You cannot give a full wage and have a margin. If the wage could be abated by 15s., and you put up another 15s., it could get on all right." But does anyone suppose it would stop at that? We should be confronted by similar demands from pretty well all the industries. What does the House suppose would be the charge upon the Exchequer? That is not my hon. Friend's proposition. He puts it in a much narrower form. He does not extend it to ordinary industry. He simply says, relief work. But there, again, I find myself in this difficulty. I quite agree that work is preferable to what is called the dole, and I agree that the vast majority of these poor people would rather have work than doles. But those who know the history of subsidising wages in this country know that that is not a proposition that anyone will take on without careful consideration indeed, and I felt it my duty to say this about the proposition, although I quite realise the value of getting something for £60,000,000. It is like so many things with which we have to deal. It looks so easy and simple when stated, but it is more difficult when you try to carry it out. I have gone, I think, over all the points, and I would ask my hon. Friends opposite to let me now have the Second Beading. We propose to send this Bill upstairs and we must get it before Easter.
Mr. G. BALFOUR: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman would give five minutes to deal with the principles of the Bill? This should have been done on Second Reading, but the right hon. Gentleman has given us instead a very

1473
full exposition of all the Committee points. Would he now do as I suggest?
Dr. MACNAMARA: It is very rarely, I think, in this House that a Minister is asked for an encore. If the hon. Gentleman will read the Memorandum, and further do me the honour of reading what I said earlier, I think he will find that I have done my best to follow out his suggestion.
Mr. G. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman had responded to my request I should not have detained the House at this late hour with the few observations I propose to offer. I listened to every word that the right hon. Gentleman uttered in his opening speech this afternoon. I thought I should have heard from him a few words reconciling the proposals contained in this Bill, which is a continuation of unemployment insurance under the abnormal conditions existing to-day. I thought that we should at least have heard a few words commending this Bill to the House by showing how our national needs at this moment in respect to unemployment could be made consistent with financial stability, and that the burdens would not be too great; that he would bring before us what were the real causes of unemployment at the present moment and what was the best way for dealing with what I consider to be a post-War, and only a post-War, problem.
It is not my intention to enter into an explanation of this subject. I simply wish to make a protest at the growing habit of Ministers on Second Reading commending Bills to this House in what are no more or less than Committee speeches. In my view this Measure will only aggravate and continue unemployment. I feel perfectly convinced that we shall only make a perpetual disease of what is now nothing more or less than an incidental distemper. I think we all agree that at the present we are not living in a normal condition in Britain; that trade and commerce are incidentally in the condition they are as a result of the War. This kind of legislation will, I feel convinced, perpetuate the existing condition of things. The distribution of this sum, which may bring up the income of a family to 34s. or 35s. a week, will make it that nobody will accept employment at a wage of £2. I only desire, in taking part for a few moments on this subject to
1474
enter, as I have said, a vigorous protest, and to suggest that we are dealing with what are peculiar conditions brought about as the result of the War as distinct from permanent unemployment in this country. It is Statemongering not Statesmanship.
If time had permitted I would have-suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that now was the time to introduce a Measure, a great act of statesmanship, making a small levy on the whole of the people of this country, and putting that money into a fund, and having it ready for distribution amongst the unemployed strictly on a subsistence basis. Where you found that in one family it was necessary to give £2 they would give it, and where 12s. would do they would give that amount, and in that way you would tend to get these people back to the workshops, and in that way you would get industry going. Calculations have been made by the Minister of Labour as to the number of unemployed in June and November of last year, but they were falsified by events, and the calculation given us to-day will also probably be falsified. This is the fifth Unemployment Insurance Bill which has been introduced, and the principle on which this Bill is based is creating unemployment. One of the most potent factors in unemployment to-day is the various Unemployment Insurance Bills introduced in this House. In my desire to do the right thing I yield to no member of the Labour party, and I will go with them if they can convince me that these proposals will produce the results which are claimed for them. The Minister of Labour has never said a word in this direction except to give the arithmetic of this Measure, and he has never attempted to reconcile these proposals with the great fundamental realities of things. The right hon. Gentleman has never shown that this Bill will bring back trade or commerce, and he has not said a word of anything of that kind. Measures of this kind are driving us deeper into unemployment, and it will be a miracle if the total number of unemployed does not go up with Measures being passed like this Bill.
I feel very deeply on this question, and I could not allow this Measure to pass without interrupting the right hon. Gentleman and stating my views. If this Measure succeeds there will be nobody

1475
more pleased than myself, but until we get rid of this class of legislation I see little hope of restarting the wheels of industry or a return to a normal state of things in this country.
Dr. MACNAMARA Dr. MACNAMARA rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 69.

Division No. 67.]

AYES.

[10.45 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Glyn, Major Ralph

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

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Goff, Sir R. Park

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Atkey, A. R.

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

Greer, Sir Harry

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Purchase, H. G.

Barnston, Major Harry

Haslam, Lewis

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Rankin, Captain James Stuart

Beilairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Hinds, John

Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

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

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bigland, Alfred

Hood, Sir Joseph

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

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

Hopkins, John W. W.

Renwick, Sir George

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Breese, Major Charles E.

Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

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

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Hurd, Percy A.

Rose, Frank H.

Brown, Major D. C.

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Bruton, Sir James

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

Jameson, John Gordon

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Jephcott, A. R.

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Carr, W. Theodore

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Casey, T. W.

Johnson, Sir Stanley

Seddon, J. A.

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

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

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

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Kenyon, Barnet

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Clough, Sir Robert

King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

Coats, Sir Stuart

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

Lindsay, William Arthur

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Cope, Major William

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Stewart, Gershom

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

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

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

Sugden, W. H.

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

Lyle, C. E. Leonard

Sutherland, Sir William

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Dawson, Sir Philip

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

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Doyle, N. Grattan

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Tryon, Major George Clement

Edge, Captain Sir William

Manville, Edward

Waddington, R.

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Matthews, David

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

Evans, Ernest

Molson, Major John Eisdale

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Waring, Major Walter

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Fell, Sir Arthur

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Fildes, Henry

Murchison, C. K.

Windsor, Viscount

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Winterton, Earl

Forestier-Walker, L.

Nail, Major Joseph

Wise, Frederick

Forrest, Walter

Neal, Arthur

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

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

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

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

Frece, Sir Walter de

Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Ganzoni, Sir John

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

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Gee, Captain Robert

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

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Oman. Sir Charles William C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gilbert, James Daniel

Parker, James

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Ammon, Charles George

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Halls, Walter

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Hartshorn, Vernon

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Finney, Samuel

Hayday, Arthur

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Foot, Isaac

Hayward, Evan

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Galbraith, Samuel

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Gillis, William

Hirst, G. H.

Cairns, John

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Holmes, J. Stanley

Cape, Thomas

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Irving, Dan

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Grundy, T. W.

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

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

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

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Lawson, John James

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Lunn, William

Robertson, John

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

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

Royce, William Stapleton

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

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

Sexton, James

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Mosley, Oswald

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

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

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

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

Myers, Thomas

Spencer, George A.

Wintringham, Margaret

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

Sutton, John Edward

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

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Swan, J. E.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

O'Grady, Captain James

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Tillett, Benjamin

Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Mills.

Question put, and agreed to.

EAST INDIA LOANS [RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise in the United Kingdom any sums of money, not exceeding £50,000,000, for the service of the Government of India; on the security of the revenues of India, and to make provision for other purposes relating thereto."
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): This Resolution is less serious in substance than it appears to be in form. Perhaps I may first explain that the Government of India, by the original Government of India Act, are free to borrow money in India without the authority of Parliament. By that same Act money can only be raised in the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State in Council on behalf of the Government of India to such extent as is authorised by this House. There have been a number of Acts similar to the Measure which I propose to introduce, founded upon this Resolution. The last was passed in 1910, and authorised the borrowing of £25,000,000 for railways and irrigation. In ordinary circumstances, the borrowing powers under that Act would not have sufficed until to-day, but, owing to the effect of the War, which rendered it impossible to carry out capital expenditure either on the railways or on the irrigation system of India, fresh powers have not been required until now.
1478
The present Bill, which I am going to introduce if I get my Resolution, asks for authority to raise £50,000,000 in the United Kingdom for Indian railways, the unexpended borrowing powers under the previous Act to which I have referred being now under £7,000,000. I think I ought to add that it is, of course, not a question of immediately borrowing or immediately spending the whole amount, but rather of renewing the existing borrowing powers of the Government of India under Act of Parliament, and it is really very largely a routine matter.
Perhaps I ought also to add that the expenditure to finance which this borrowing power is asked for is remunerative expenditure for railway development, and that the Government of India expects to secure the same substantial profit in the future that, as a whole, it has obtained from its railway expenditure in the past. It would not be in order to discuss in detail, at this stage, the policy and how it has been carried out, nor to refer to the very important Committee presided over by Sir William Acworth, but on a further stage of the Bill I shall do so. Lest anyone might think that there is any question about the financial stability of the Government of India, I should like to point out that, while it is undoubtedly true that during the last year or two that Government has had temporary financial difficulties, they are the result of world-wide causes by no means peculiar to India. Heavy taxation has been imposed both this year and last year in the Budgets, and both the Government of India and the India Office are fully alive to the importance of restoring the Budget's equilibrium. In conclusion, I would say that when I present the Bill, a Memorandum will be presented fully setting out all its provisions.
Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask the Noble Lord one question? Having regard to the conditions which now obtain in India, and which are quite different from

1479
those of a month or two ago, does this House assume any responsibility for the capital of or interest on these loans?
Earl WINTERTON: It assumes neither. This is, as I have said, really a routine matter. By the original Government of India Act, the Government of India, to raise money in this country, have to obtain the permission of Parliament, and the conditions are not affected by the last Government of India Act.
11.0 P.M.
Mr. ACLAND: I do not think that any hon. Member will want to detain the Committee for long on this matter, and for very good reasons, the chief of which is that, although in earlier days the different stages of these Bills used to be made the occasion of long and acrimonius Debates on almost every matter of Indian policy, the House of Commons has, in its wisdom, agreed with the other House to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses on Indian Affairs, before which, no doubt, any explanations that may be desired as to the policy of the Government of India with regard to railways and irrigation will be afforded. That being so, and it being a fact that the Committee is looking forward, a little later in the Session, when the Secretary of State for India has had rather more time to become acquainted with his new duties, to meeting him with regard to various matters concerning his policy in India, I am not going to initiate anything like the old Debates of long ago. I should, however, be glad if my Noble Friend at a later stage would deal with two or three points. The first, which has always been raised on these Bills, is whether any of the railway money is wanted for strategic railways, or whether it is merely for commercial development. I think the House would like to be satisfied with regard to that. The second point is whether, owing to the present financial stringency in India, there has been any particular call for this railway and irrigation money, or whether the Government of India is only resuming, more or less in the natural course of events, its accustomed pace, which has been, of course, as the Noble Lord explained, interrupted because of the War. Thirdly, how much money towards irrigation
1480
and railways it is now possible to raise in India compared with the sums which are being or will be raised under this Bill in the United Kingdom; and lastly, I think the Committee would like to have an assurance that at a later date the Secretary of State will explain to the Joint Committee on Indian Affairs any matters with regard to the railway or irrigation policy of the Indian Government that they may like to ask him for an explanation upon. I do not press him on these matters to-night, but I think some of them are matters the House may wish to go into on the later stages of the Bill which will be brought forward.
Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: As these loans will not be under the control of the House, although permission is asked of the House, will they still be trustee loans, and if so, according to the modern conditions of the Indian Government, will the Indian Government have to conform to the similar Regulation that is imposed on Colonial Governments before they can become trustee loans? That is a point that ought to be cleared up.
Earl WINTERTON: I quite agree. As far as I know there is no change. Before the further stages of the Bill I will have the point made quite clear.
Sir J. D. REES: There will be further opportunities of considering points arising in the Bill that is to come before the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, which is in a short time to meet the Secretary of State to discuss various matters. Having congratulated my Noble Friend on having become Under-Secretary of State, I think many hon. Members, who remember Lord Peel as a very capable and active Member of this House, will rejoice that he, too, has succeeded to the high office of Secretary of State, and I think many of us would wish to offer him our hearty congratulations. As regards the need for raising this sum, as one who has been concerned for 45 years with Indian railways, I am convinced of the necessity for this Bill for railways, and for extending irrigation works, such as distinguish particularly the Presidency of Madras and the Punjab. As regards the financial stability of India, which has for the moment been obscured by temporary

1481
causes, I can remember a Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, said the finances of India are far better managed and in far better condition than the finances of England. I do not propose to introduce any controversial subject like a comparative consideration of the finances of the two countries, and having made these few remarks, lest it should appear in India that Members more closely connected therewith were not interested in the matter and were not present, I have no further desire to delay the getting of this Resolution, which I wish God speed.
Mr. SWAN: I hope we shall have opportunities of going into the details of this proposal. I am not going to oppose it; in fact, I am glad that the resources of India are to be developed in regard to railways and irrigation. Some of my colleagues and I, however, are apprehensive that the railways and resources of India are not to be developed for the sake of India or the Empire, but in order to find cheap labour to compete with British labour and to cut down the standards of working men in this country. As irrigation extends land will come into cultivation and mines will be developed. Some of my colleagues will remember the proposals made in this House when the coal dispute was in progress, that coal should be brought into Great Britain in order to reduce the standards of the British miners. We hope that this expansion of India which is so essential will not be used either to reduce the wage standard or worsen the hours of labour of the British miners or enslave the natives for the sake of certain people in this country who would refuse to advance wages. There is just one other observation I would like to make in regard to this matter. I think it is a splendid thing to extend the Empire's resources, to employ our own people, but I hope that the same policy which has been adopted in the development of India will be considered in the development of the resources of Britain as well. This is just as essential to-day as the development of India.
The CHAIRMAN: The Committee is considering Indian railways and irrigation, and this does not apply to the development of this country.
Mr. SWAN: But we should have some consideration for our own country's development as well as for India.
Major GLYN: I want to ask one question of the Noble Lord. I wish to know whether the Secretary of State for India will make representations to the Government of India that the money for materials for the railways to be constructed will be spent in this country, because we all know that there are signs that materials are being purchased elsewhere than in this country. If money is being spent in America on Indian railways, then I do not see why some of the money that is necessary should not be raised in the American market.
Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: I want to ask my hon. Friend one or two questions in connection with this matter. We all sympathise with him and the object he has in view to-night, but at the present critical moment in finance there are considerations to be kept in mind. Are the railways at last going to bring their charges up to an economic level? Can my Noble Friend give mo an assurance that the promises to that effect which were repeatedly made are actually to be carried out, and that the ridiculous surcharges which have been such an impediment on the traffic by railway and waterway are to be stopped? I think before we vote this Resolution we ought to have some information as to whether a determined effort is being made to put the railways on an economic basis. They are not now on an economic basis, and there is a deficit of six crores of rupees per annum. The second question arises out of the observations of the hon. Member for Clackmannon (Major Glyn). If, as I presume, the plant for irrigation and railways is to be purchased in this country, what is the position with regard to the very heavily-increased duties which the Government of India were proposing to levy? By the Budget introduced the other day they very heavily increased the duties on machinery from this country.
Sir J. D. REES: The duties were rejected by the Legislative Assembly.
Earl WINTERTON: The question of the details of the Indian Budget does not arise on this Resolution.
The CHAIRMAN: I cannot rule it out of order. It is in order to point out

1483
the difficulties in carrying out this matter.
Mr. SHAW: Look at the position with which we are faced! The Government of India is in the dilemma that it has an enormous deficit. It is not a temporary, but a permanent deficit. What are they going to do? They came here in a financial position which shows a permanent deficit and ask for power to borrow money in this country. Before Parliament give that power one naturally asks what provision they are going to make to pay? If they are faced with a permanent deficit, and the Legislative Assembly refuses to put them in a position to make ends meet, what explanation can my Noble Friend give us, or what suggestion can he make to the House as to why he should give these people power to borrow money in this country? Can he tell us—and I think it is extremely pertinent to the Resolution which he moved—whether they propose to pass their financial proposals over the head of the Legislative Assembly by the use of their reserve powers? Can he tell us whether they propose to meet that deficit by borrowing, and can he tell us—
The CHAIRMAN: This is now going too far. I do not think we can ask the Secretary of State to explain the manner in which the Government of India is going to equalise matters.
Mr. SHAW: I bow to your ruling, but the point is, that in order to allay apprehensions which undoubtedly exist, it would be extremely helpful if the Under-Secretary of State for India could assure us that this particular proposal does not in any way arise out of the present financial position. If this were a proposal to borrow money here in order to balance the Budget in India, it would be extremely detrimental to the success of the loan. I do not hold that view. I dare say the loan is intended for real Indian improvements, say, on the railways, but the railways have a deficit of six crores. It is difficult to see how this loan is secured if the railways are not first put in a position to make both ends meet. Can the Under-Secretary of State give tie some explanation? We do not wish to delay the passage of the Resolution.
Mr. J. JONES: I cannot pretend to be an expert on foreign politics, but I know
1484
something about India because I belong to an organisation which took a keen interest in Indian affairs for over 40 years. My late comrade, H. M. Hyndman, displayed considerable knowledge of Indian politics so far as they were then understood. Indian railways are a very interesting subject because they are used mainly for strategic purposes. When money is asked for we ought to know on what it is to be spent and for what the railways are intended. Is it wanted to repeat in India what has already been done in Ireland? Is it wanted to make sure that Imperial policy will be carried out to its logical conclusion, or are the people of India to have any rights in the matter? If 50 millions of money were required in India I believe that the people of India, given the opportunity, would be able to raise it for the purpose of providing all the railway facilities that they require. But, after all, the Government of India is not the government of the people of India. It is government forced upon the people of India without their consent, and the majority of the people of India have practically no voice in or control of what they are forced to maintain. The average Indian peasant receives a wage of about £2 a year, and he is taxed to a greater extent than another person in the world, in comparison to his means. Yet there are in India rich people who are quite capable of raising money if they get authority to do so. Who will have to pay? The peasant and the ryot will have to make up the deficiency. It is always the same story, whether in England or in India—the worker pays. In this case 50 millions of money is to be borrowed in England. Why not give the people of India the power to raise their own money?
Earl WINTERTON: That is what you are doing in this Resolution.
Mr. JONES: The Resolution does not give the people of India the power. It gives the power to a comparatively small section of those who claim to represent India; it gives them the right to inflict upon India financial difficulties. The railways of India are not conductors of trade; they are not supporters of the industries of India. They are thrust upon the people of India. Famine is perpetual in India, because people who have to live on handfuls of rice, must always be in a state of famine.
Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: They will not get rice unless they have railways.
Mr. JONES: Or unless they have people like you to provide them with loans at high rates of interest. That is the curse of the situation. The land can produce the things which the people require. The people are not asking for your help. The demand is coming from the dominant section who control the affairs of India. Just as I stand as an Irishman for the right of my own country to control its own destinies, so I also stand for the right of India to control its own destinies and for the right of its people to express themselves accordingly to the principles of democracy. I go further. I ask our Imperialist friends, have they forgotten their Imperialism? Supposing that this permission is given, and it will be given, because there are a lot of people looking for interest—people who believe in getting money without working for it—what is going to happen? Are the orders for these goods to be given to countries who are in an economic position superior to our own? If we give the permission of Parliament for the raising of this money, are we going to make no conditions? [Interruption.] I know I may move in Committee, but my movements will not count for much. Last night we were told we must economise on the education of our children; to-night we are told this is only a mere matter of £50,000,000 which we can find for Indian railways and irrigation.
The CHAIRMAN: There is no question of any charge falling upon the British Exchequer, therefore the argument of the hon. Member cannot be relevant.
Mr. JONES: We are going to find the money immediately. Of course, we shall get it back eventually, but the people who are going to raise the money are the very people who say they cannot afford to find money for the education of our own people. They will find this money all right, because big interest is going to be made on it. If this money is to be raised by permission of the British Government, then at least one thing should be done. In order to relieve the unemployment existing in this country the Indian Government should be instructed to see to it that the work, which will be a necessary consequence of this, the manufacture of the machinery which is going to be ordered is given to the people
1486
of this country. If that is not to be done, then the Government is insulting our intelligence by asking us to approve of this loan.
Earl WINTERTON: I should like to answer one or two of the points which have been made. Regarding the speech to which we have just listened, may I tell the hon. Member, in a homely phrase, that he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. There is no proposal such as he suggests. I understood his argument to be, that in some mysterious way the Government of this country were going to raise the money.
Mr. J. JONES: No, no.
Earl WINTERTON: The Government are going to do nothing of the sort. The money is going to be raised by the Government of India, if they get permission, not necessarily immediately—probably the whole of the amount will not be raised for four or five years. It will not all be raised now.
Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Nor here.
Earl WINTERTON: I was about to deal with that also. It is not necessary either that it should all be raised here. Some of it will be raised in India, and I find, on looking into particulars of previous loans, that a great proportion of those loans has been subscribed in the past by European financiers, in France and elsewhere as well as our own financiers. Whatever the hon. Member may think of the finances of this country, his view is not shared by financiers of other countries, and Indian loans have always been very freely subscribed to, by the financiers of Europe generally. So much for the question of when and how the money is going to be raised.
There is one other statement in the hon. Member's speech to which I should like to make reference, and it was a statement with which some of his friends seemed to agree. It was suggested that in some mysterious way the building of these railways would do injury rather than good to the poorest people in India. That is a most extraordinary argument. It is generally admitted in every circle, economic and otherwise, that in a country which is admittedly poor, as India is, the one thing to do to increase the general prosperity is to improve and increase the

1487
railways. It has always been proved so in the past, and as a matter of fact the railway system in India has been responsible for saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the famine areas through the devoted efforts of the Indian and British civil servants in that country. As regards the rather more serious point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Clackmannan and Eastern (Major Glyn) with regard to the question of the purchase of the material in this country, this is, of course, a very important question. I must point out to him that anyone standing here in my position, representing not merely the India Office, but the Government of India, and through them the people of India, has to consider the interests of the people of India, their economic and general interests, and, further, has to consider a Resolution which was passed by the Legislative Assembly last September in the following terms:
"This Assembly recommends to the Governor-General in Council that the High Commissioner for India in London should be instructed by the Government of India to buy ordinarily the stores required for India in the cheapest market consistently with quality and delivery, and every case where this rule has not been followed should be communicated to the Government of India with full reasons for the information of the Legislative Assembly."
That was a Resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly in India, and the Government are bound to consider that Resolution. A similar Resolution was passed in the Council of State. I can only say on that point that we shall pursue the same procedure as in the past and that when rolling stock and so forth is required the widest publicity practicable will be given in this country, and tenders will be duly considered, from whatever source they are received; but, in the interests of the Indian taxpayer and in the interests of the people of India, we must naturally buy in the cheapest market from which a satisfactory supply can be received. Of course, full consideration has to be given in every case to such points as the quality of the goods, reliability of the tenders, case of inspection, time of delivery, and so forth, but I have no doubt that, those conditions being complied with, there will be very large purchases indeed made in this country, as in the past. At
1488
the same time, I must be quite frank with the House that I cannot give any pledge on that point.
The last question with which I wish to deal is that raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw) in reference to the Indian Budget. I can at once assure him that this proposal has no connection whatever with the Indian Budget, and has nothing whatever to do with the deficit.
This proposed loan is for the purposes stated, namely, for the railways and for irrigation purposes. As regards putting the Indian railways on an economic basis, I can only say that fares have been increased, although there has been some difficulty in getting it through, and that surcharges have been replaced by increased capital, and we have every hope that we shall be able to put the railways again on a proper paying basis. One reason why permission is sought for the raising of this loan is that we may be able to purchase the absolutely necessary rolling stock, which has become exhausted as a result of the War and which when renewed, will greatly increase the revenue side of the Indian railways. My right hon. Friend opposite stated that what we wanted was additional rolling stock, strengthening of bridges, and things of that kind, and I am confident that when these things have been done it will be one of the principal steps we could take to put the Indian railways on a paying basis, which everyone connected with the Government of India will be only too pleased to see brought about.
Mr. A. SHAW: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for clearing away what might be serious apprehensions. Personally, I feel perfectly sure there is hardly a finer security.
Mr. J. JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what chance British engineering firms have of providing the rolling stock, which will be bought in consequence of this borrowing, in competition with countries like Germany?
Earl WINTERTON: I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to answer that question. I said that there would be every opportunity given to British firms to tender, and we hope

1489
that the quality of workmanship and the general efficiency of British rolling stock and the price will enable them to tender on favourable terms.
Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Have not very large orders already been placed in this country for railway material during the last few months? Many of them have gone to our district.
Earl WINTERTON: They always have. There is not the slightest doubt that the majority of the rolling stock purchased will be British. I cannot give a pledge, as I have said.
Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The hon. Gentleman has enlightened the Committee as to the purposes for which the Loan is to be obtained. He says the railways there have increased some of their fares. I should like to know what he can say with regard to the money that is going to be used in irrigation work. The £50,000,000 has to be borrowed on the security of the revenues of India, and I should like to know exactly what amount of extra taxation is likely to be placed upon the people of India as the result of the borrowing of this money. I can quite understand the point made by the Noble Lord that the raising of railway fares would, in all probability, enable these railways to be put upon a paying basis, and consequently would require to be raised from that point of view. The cost of the irrigation works cannot, of course, be charged in the same way. What I am anxious to know is whether there is likely to be any increased taxation on India for irrigation purposes.
Earl WINTERTON: It is a very theoretical question to answer, because some of these loans may not be raised for four or five years, but our hope is that it will not be necessary to increase taxation. With the general improvement of trade, we hope future taxation will bring in a great deal more. With regard to irrigation, we have had to guard ourselves against the possibility that we may have to use some of this money for that purpose. The present intention is to spend it on railways, because the need for the extension of railways is great and we quite realise that in the circumstances of the time the amount of money we can afford to raise and spend is limited.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

THE DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Sir Arthur Boscawen.]
Sir R. COOPER: I will try not to detain the House more than two or three minutes—
The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): May I appeal to the House to let me have this Bill? It raises purely a technical point. The House has already passed a Supplementary Vote to enable us, by an additional £400,000, to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease. By the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, we are only allowed to spend in one year £140,000. In order, therefore, that this Vote, which has already been considered by the House, and passed on two occasions, may be put technically in a right position, we put the matter forward. We cannot do all that is necessary with only £140,000. The Bill only applies to this particular financial year, and as it raises no material point that we have not already settled, I hope the House will allow me to get it.
Mr. ACLAND: Is it possible, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to debate this matter after Eleven o'clock, even if no objection be taken, or must it be passed without debate.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): If no objection be taken, it may be proceeded with by consent of the House, and remarks may be allowed.
Sir R. COOPER: I am very sorry my right hon. Friend has taken up the attitude he has just expressed to the House. As he has done so, it leaves me no alternative, in order to put myself quite in order, to move the Motion standing in my name for the rejection of the Bill.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot do that. If he objects, the Bill cannot be taken.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I understand, by your ruling Sir, that by consent of the House, remarks can be made on the Bill. I shall be only too glad to answer any questions that hon. Members may desire

1491
to put, but I hope there will be no insistence upon us not getting the Bill.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Is there any reason why this Bill should not be put oft till to-morrow, or the next day? The Government seem to be getting into the habit of bringing in these Bills after Eleven o'clock, and asking hon. Members not to object to them.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend. Had we not already debated this question, our contention would be unreasonable. This Bill merely removes the technical objection, because, unless the Bill is passed to-night, the money Vote cannot be effective.
Sir A. COOPER: My whole desire is to help the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to get this Bill. I shall confine myself briefly to two points. The first has reference to the appointment by the right hon. Gentleman of a Departmental Committee to inquire why this foot-and-mouth disease came and spread over the country. I want to suggest, particularly having read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman of Monday week, that there might be some wisdom if he somewhat extended the terms of reference, so as to enable this Committee, which, so far as I can judge, is composed of particularly capable men, whilst they are at their work, to have the opportunity of advising the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture on the other problem of scientific research, with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt at length on Monday week. I understand that at present this Committee is confined very closely to the particular object of ascertaining why this spread of the disease came about, and of making recommendations. It would be an advantage if they could go a little bit further. My other point has reference to something that has happened since the Debate of last Monday week, and that is the issuing of the Order dated the 23rd March. I quite understand that there has been a suggestion made that the importation of Irish cattle for grazing in this country would shortly be permitted, and this Order puts that suggestion into actual force. I want to express my own misgivings at the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken. The right hon. Gentleman has been very firm in
1492
sticking to the one and the only policy that could save this country from an enormous loss with regard to the livestock industry, and now that he has the disease under control so well to allow the practically free importation of Irish cattle for grazing in this country is a very dangerous and risky step which I do not think the Government is justified in taking. We have everything to gain by encouraging the breeding of stock in Ireland and its export to this country, because we want it for our supplies, but that result will not be brought about if the cattle are only sent to slaughter and not allowed to be spread all over the country. I think it is a bad precedent to put in this proviso of local option, allowing those local authorities administering the Diseases of Animals Act to have the option of forbidding the entry of these cattle in their areas—
Mr. MACLEAN: I understand that my hon. Friend is moving his Motion. I would like to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if it is not a fact that he is simply speaking by the consent of the House?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet can only speak by the general consent of the House.
Mr. MACLEAN: Objection has been taken.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I understand that the hon. Baronet does not move.
Sir R. COOPER: That is so. I am trying to help the Government, and I ask the hon. Member to allow me to finish. My last point is that I do think this action is likely to raise a very undesirable and confusing situation if certain local authorities pass a regulation forbidding Irish cattle being moved into their area whilst they may be moved into the other areas around. The right hon. Gentleman ought to consider carefully as to whether that permission is wise, and whether it is not really his duty to make up his mind—he has scientific and technical advisers to inform his what is right—and act, and either allow young cattle to come in or not allow any local authorities to have the option of contracting out.
Mr. ACLAND: I hope the House will let the right hon. Gentleman get this stage of the Bill to-night. I feel very strongly about one matter. I am intensely anxious about the partial aban-

1493
donment by the Government of the policy of slaughter in favour of the policy of isolation. Isolation, not in a building but in open fields, must be dangerous, particularly at this time of the year, when high winds prevail, as saliva from diseased animals may be diffused by migratory birds and animals. After all, the only absolutely safe policy is the old and tried policy of slaughter.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) has asked about the Departmental Committee. This is not an expert or technical inquiry; it is an inquiry into the question of the origin of the outbreak and the methods employed to cope with it; also to make suggestions for any necessary change in the law. I have put on that Committee a number of practical men. As to the scientific side of the question, I think it would be better for that to be dealt with by an inquiry on international limes, and I am prepared to have such an inquiry if desired as well as the departmental investigation. In regard to the Order about Irish store cattle, we have had no evidence whatever that disease exists in Ireland: on the contrary, the evidence is all the other way. A lot of Irish animals have been brought over to this country and after being kept at the ports for some days have been slaughtered, and in no single case has disease been discovered. If there had been disease in Ireland it must have been disclosed in some of these animals. There might be great danger if Irish animals coming here were driven from market to market in the ordinary course of trade, therefore, in order that we may get the stores for our pasturages, for which the farmers are calling, I have agreed that Irish store cattle may come here. But they must be sold at the port of debarkation and then licensed direct from the port to the farmer and be kept for 28 days on the farm. Therefore, while allowing these animals to come in from a country in which it is believed no disease exists, I have eliminated any possible danger of the beasts spreading disease in this country by being driven from market to market.
I hope, therefore, in the very difficult problem with which I have had to deal and in the attempt to meet the demands of the farmers for store cattle, I have
1494
adopted reasonable precautions to prevent any danger of the spread of disease. On the question of the local authorities having the right to admit or refuse admission into their areas of store cattle, there is nothing new in that. They have always had this power. If a particular town says, "We do not want the store cattle here; we are suspicious of the Irish stores," it is not for the Board of Agriculture to deprive them of the power to refuse them, which they now have. If, on the other hand, there is a demand for stores in a county and the local authorities think it safe to have the animals, then they can be imported subject to the conditions I have mentioned. With regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambourne (Mr. Acland), slaughter has been carried out in this country merely for the purpose of stopping the spread of disease. Whether we slaughter or not is optional on the part of the Ministry, but in order to save expense and to avoid slaughtering an undue number of animals in this country I have laid it down that where they can be safely isolated, isolation shall be adopted in preference to slaughter. It has been done in about 50 cases. I have always told my officials that in a matter of this sort their motto must be "Safety first," and I have never agreed to any single ease of isolation unless my technical advisers have informed me it can be safely done. I am quite willing to go further into the matter with my technical advisers on the point mentioned by my right hon. Friend. Where there are cases of isolation in open fields there may be additional danger. I would certainly discuss that with my advisers to-morrow, but in that matter, as I do not pretend to be a technical expert myself, I must be guided—as long as I lay down the principle, which is Safety first—by my technical advisers in whom I have the greatest confidence.
Mr. RAWLINSON Mr. RAWLINSON rose—
Mr. N. MACLEAN: I object.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman persist in his objection?
Mr. MACLEAN: Yes.
Sir R. COOPER: May I ask whether by allowing me to speak the House has not agreed to the Bill being taken?—[HON MEMBERS: "No!"]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House allowed the hon. Baronet to speak, but it was in the power of any hon. Member at any time to bring the remarks to an end.
It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Cloak, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Seven Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

  GENOA CONFERENCE (PRIME MINISTER).
  GENOA CONFERENCE (PRIME MINISTER).
RUSSIA.
  REFUGEES.
  REFUGEES.
  CONVENTIONISTS.
  CONVENTIONISTS.
INDIA.
  PRISMATIC BINOCULARS (GOVERNMENT ORDERS).
  PRISMATIC BINOCULARS (GOVERNMENT ORDERS).
  PROVINCIAL GOVERNORS (HOME LEAVE).
  PROVINCIAL GOVERNORS (HOME LEAVE).
SCOTLAND.
  PROCURATOR FISCAL, ROXBURGHSHIRE AND BERWICKSHIRE.
  PROCURATOR FISCAL, ROXBURGHSHIRE AND BERWICKSHIRE.
  GREENOCK ACADEMY (LEAVING CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION).
  GREENOCK ACADEMY (LEAVING CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION).
  SELF-GOVERNMENT.
  SELF-GOVERNMENT.
  CULAG PIER, LOCHINVER.
  CULAG PIER, LOCHINVER.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  PROSECUTION, GREENOCK.
  PROSECUTION, GREENOCK.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  FREE BENEFIT (TENANTS OF CROFTS).
  FREE BENEFIT (TENANTS OF CROFTS).
  DISALLOWED CLAIM, LICOLN (MR. HOPEWELL).
  DISALLOWED CLAIM, LICOLN (MR. HOPEWELL).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (EMERGENCY NIGHT WORK).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (EMERGENCY NIGHT WORK).
  GERMANY.
  GERMANY.
HOUSING.
  BUILDING MATERIALS (OUTSTANDING ACCOUNTS).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (OUTSTANDING ACCOUNTS).
  ISLE OF WIGHT.
  ISLE OF WIGHT.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (AUDIT).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (AUDIT).
  MILK.
  MILK.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  TEMPORARY OFFICERS.
  TEMPORARY OFFICERS.
  WOMEN.
  WOMEN.
  AIRCRAFT DISPOSAL COMPANY.
  AIRCRAFT DISPOSAL COMPANY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (REFUND CLAIMS).
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (REFUND CLAIMS).
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  INCOME TAX (FARMERS).
  INCOME TAX (FARMERS).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  IRELAND (INCOME TAX).
  IRELAND (INCOME TAX).
EX SERVICE MEN.
  PUBLICITY OFFICER, MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  PUBLICITY OFFICER, MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  ORDNANCE DEPOT, CHILWELL (DISCHARGES).
  ORDNANCE DEPOT, CHILWELL (DISCHARGES).
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
POST OFFICE.
  LONDON POST OFFICE TUBE RAILWAY.
  LONDON POST OFFICE TUBE RAILWAY.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (MISS RANCE).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (MISS RANCE).
TRANSPORT
  MIDLAND COALFIELDS (RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION).
  MIDLAND COALFIELDS (RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION).
  FISH TRAFFIC.
  FISH TRAFFIC.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC, AFRICA (DUTY).
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC, AFRICA (DUTY).
  KENYA (ARREST OF MR. THUKU).
  KENYA (ARREST OF MR. THUKU).
  AGRICULTURAL LAND (RATES).
  AGRICULTURAL LAND (RATES).
  FOOD PRICES.
  FOOD PRICES.
  SUMMER-TIME (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  SUMMER-TIME (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  MARRIED PARENTS (LEGAL RIGHTS).
  MARRIED PARENTS (LEGAL RIGHTS).
  NAVAL APPOINTMENTS (ABOLITION).
  NAVAL APPOINTMENTS (ABOLITION).
  GERMAN PAYMENTS (NAVAL COMMISSION OF CONTROL).
  GERMAN PAYMENTS (NAVAL COMMISSION OF CONTROL).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (VACCINATION).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (VACCINATION).
  FAIR WAGES CLAUSE (MESSRS. MACFARLANE).
  FAIR WAGES CLAUSE (MESSRS. MACFARLANE).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (PREFERENCE).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (PREFERENCE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD HEWART.
The Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Hewart, K.C., Lord Chief Justice of England, having been created Baron HEWART of Bury in the County of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

NEAR EAST CONFERENCE.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is in a position to give this House any information as to recent events that have transpired in Paris?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in accordance with a Notice that has appeared in the public Press, I had contemplated making to-day, in your Lordships' House, a statement about the proceedings of the Conference in Paris, from which I have just returned, but I think, for various reasons, that I shall be in rather a better position to do so to-morrow than I am to-day. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I will postpone my statement, only saying that, if the noble and learned Lord is good enough to repeat his Question to-morrow, I shall be in a position to answer.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am muck obliged to the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask the noble Marquess when the Paper which gives the findings of the Cannes Conference, which is to be the foundation of the Genoa Conference, will be in the hands of noble Lords?
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The Question was mentioned at a meeting of His Majesty's Ministers yesterday, and, of course, it is desirable that the Paper should be in the hands of noble Lords and of members of

931
the other House of Parliament at once. My impression from what passed was that the Paper is already in print and only awaits the ordinary process of distribution to be in the hands of noble Lords.

LAW LORDS AND PARTY POLITICS.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I would ask the indulgence of your Lordships to allow me to make a personal statement, having regard to criticisms passed upon my conduct by the noble Viscount on the Woolsack with reference to a speech that I made at Burton-on-Trent on Saturday last. In the first place, I must express my great regret that I was unable to be here on Monday last, having regard to the fact that it was I who, on Thursday, asked your Lordships to adjourn until that date, which you were kind enough to do. We are all subject to these occasional afflictions of colds, and I plead to having suffered from a very heavy one.
With the criticism passed by the Lord Chancellor I propose to deal as briefly as I can, and may I say that I hope to do so without the least heat and without in any way attempting to get into any personal conflict with the Lord Chancellor who is, of course, as I recognise, the Leader of the Tribunal of which I am one of the Judges. The noble and learned Viscount has thought fit to raise a question which I admit is of extreme importance, though I think, when I come to deal with it, of a much wider and more general aspect than the noble Viscount has seen fit to give it. I can assure your Lordships, and I know you will believe me, that the only one object I have, or can have, in view is to explain that I do not believe I have broken, consciously or unconsciously, any rule or any tradition of your Lordships' House. That is the matter with which I am most concerned. The other general question as to what ought to be the relations of various judicial persons to Party politics is, as you will see in a moment, one of a very wide character which raises many more questions than the alleged breach of conduct upon my part.
I practised at the Bar for forty-four years, and I do not believe I exaggerate when I say that in the whole of that long career there was no advocate more jealous of the pure administration of justice than I was. As I understood his speech, the Lord Chancellor laid this down—at least
932
this is what I took to be his general proposition—that any one acting as a Judge should not take an active part in politics, because his taking an active part in politics might react at least upon the contemplation of him in the eyes of the public as a Judge. If any such rule as that had ever been laid down, or should be laid down, I should obey it of course; but no such rule has ever been laid down, and I will show your Lordships how far away we are from it when I deal with the actual facts.
I shall quote two only of many examples, because they are two of whom I am very proud, and both of whom were Irishmen. Lord Cairns had been Attorney-General in Mr. Disraeli's Government, in the House of Commons. He was promoted to the Bench as a Lord Justice—mark you, not as a Judge in this House, but as a Judge in His Majesty's Court, as a Lord Justice. He had been so useful to Mr. Disraeli that while he was a Lord Justice be was made a Peer with a seat in this House. For what purpose? In order that, while he still held the post of Lord Justice, he might help Mr. Disraeli to pass his great Reform Act, one of the most controversial political matters of the day. And whilst he was still a Judge of the High Court—not a Lord of Appeal, if my recollection is right—he made about fifty-five speeches upon that subject in this House. Does anyone make the imputation about Lord Cairns that he either sullied his own reputation, or did anything to interfere with the due administration of the law, or to bring discredit upon justice, by taking so prominent a part in Party politics while he was a Judge of the High Court? I pass from Lord Cairns. He is probably the lawyer of whom we who come from Ireland are most proud. He left a most unsullied reputation and, I believe, did more to advance English Jurisprudence and bring it up to date in in his own time than any man of that era.
The other example is Lord Macnaghten. I do not know whether anybody questions the uprightness or the honesty of Lord Macnaghten, but I have heard him, over and over again in this House when he was a Lord of Appeal, as I am, taking part in Irish Bills which were probably the most controversial of all the Bills that came before the House of Commons for many years. What is more, Lord Macnaghten felt it his duty, as I did, when he thought danger and calamities were threatening his native land—for he also was an Irish-

933
man—to come forward when he was a Lord of Appeal and sign the Covenant for resistance to Home Rule if any attempt was made to put it into force against that portion of the country from which he came. I never heard any attack upon Lord Macnaghten for any of his actions, although he also was a Judge, acted as such in the House of Lords, and was in exactly the same position as I am.
It may he said that there is some difference between speaking in this House and speaking on a platform in the country. I cannot see the difference. What you say here would be probably even more widely read in the country than what you say on a platform. But you will always have to get back, if you are going to criticise the matter at all, to the one question which was put by the Lord Chancellor—namely, that anyone acting as a Judge should not take an active part in politics. Whether you take that part in this House or elsewhere, the result is exactly the same, and you prevent it with the same object.
Your Lordships may not be aware of the different noble Lords who hear appeals in this House—appeals on questions of law mainly—who are never brought into contact with juries or witnesses, the importance of which will be shown in a few moments. There are four categories. There is, in the first place, the Lord Chancellor himself. In the second place, there are ex-Lord Chancellors; at the present moment I think there are four of them. In the third place, there are certain noble Lords who have Peerages in this House, and who have legal experience which entitles them to sit at the Tribunals. Fourthly, there are what are called Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, such as I am myself. Where I come in conflict with the principle attempted to be laid down by the Lord Chancellor is in this respect. According to him the first three classes do not in any wise taint the administration of justice by taking political action, although they do exactly the same thing in the administration of justice as the fourth class; and that while those three first classes have a right to take an active part in controversial and public politics, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are in a different category. I decline to accept that proposition. If any of us who hear legal appeals in this House is tainted, or is bringing taint upon the administration
934
of justice by taking part in politics, then it must be each and every one of us who does it, for the same principle must be applicable to each.
Let me examine these four classes. There is, first, the Lord Chancellor. He is the head of us all. He comes and presides, when politics give him time, over the hearing of appeals in your Lordships' House. Does he taint justice? He is the most political one of all, and, what is more, he is engaged in working out policies. He is one of those engaged in working out the policy of the particular Government in power. He is one of those who, if there were anything to be said, would be bound to try to see that a particular policy prevails. I do not think anyone would deny that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has had more political work thrown upon him than any Lord Chancellor, certainly in my time. Every day he is engaged nearly the whole of the day in the duties of politics, and in the duties of the Cabinet, and in this House, as anyone must have remarked—at least I have done so in the short time that I have been here— almost the whole of the political business is thrown upon the Lord Chancellor. Is it to be said, and, if so, why, that he can come and preside at the Appeal Tribunal here and be the head of it—and a very brilliant head he is, if I may be allowed to say so—and go straight away afterwards to take part in the most controversial political matters, whether on the platform or at dinners or luncheons or anywhere else, without in the slightest degree, in doing so, detracting from the dignity of the law?
What, then, is the reason why I detract from it? Is it to be laid down that because you hold a particular office your character is one that can be more trusted? If a man cannot be trusted faithfully to administer law then he ought not to be in any judicial capacity. He has no right to be there. If you are going to abuse your position as a Judge you can do so whether you talk in public or whether you do not. You can always allow your political feelings to get the better of you, though I am bound to say, in the long years that I have been at the Bar as a practising barrister, I have never found, amongst the multitude of Judges before whom I have practised, both in Ireland and in this country, the least difference whether I was practising before a Judge whom I knew to hold

935
Radical opinions, or Conservative opinions, or any other opinions. I have found them all honourable men, brought up in the study of the law, and not caring one farthing about results that might ensue so long as they faithfully administered the trust given to them by His Majesty.
Then there are the ex-Lord Chancellors. Is a different position claimed for them; and, if so, why? I sit every day with ex-Lord Chancellors, hearing appeals. Some of them do not agree with me in politics. Does any one imagine that because of that the administration of justice suffers in any way? So far as I know, I am on the best terms with them. Nobody has ever laid down the proposition that ex-Lord Chancellors were not entitled to go and make speeches in the country. They do so, in fact, every week, and only the other day one of them—one of the most honoured, and most respected and ablest I have sat under—went off to take part in the Cambridgeshire election. And why not? If he were able to do that, and come back and rejoin me in trying a case, what is the difference between that noble Lord and myself? You cannot condemn me, unless you hold that I have a different standard of honour from that which he has. I am perfectly sure that he would not claim to come under any higher standard than I lay down for myself. No, the truth of the matter is that it is sought to lay down an artificial line to which I, at all events, will not agree, until it is laid down by some other authority who cannot be questioned. If it is so laid down, I shall, of course, obey.
There is the third class of noble Lords who try appeals, and they are Lords of Parliament who have held judicial office, or have high legal qualifications. I will take two of them. There is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor. He claims to have a perfect right to take part in politics, and to go where he likes and speak where he likes on politics. He sits with me in the Courts. We have sat together harmoniously, without any political squabbles, in all the patent and other cases that we have tried. Why are these noble Lords to be allowed to take part in politics? What is the difference? Is it because they are not paid? I have failed to see how the rule laid down by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is to be applied to one class unless you
936
apply it to all. We are all Judges. If politics taint any one of us then they taint all equally so far as the administration of justice is concerned.
Let us go just a little further. Let us see what the rule is that you are proposing to lay down. The rule that you are attempting to lay down as regards my humble self is of little importance so far as I am concerned. In the House of Commons there are a number of Judges and Recorders who try prisoners and important criminal cases. Are they to be restricted? If not, why are they not restricted? There was an instance in the last few days. I think it was the Recorder of Nottingham, Sir Ernest Wild. He has been there as the Leader of the Central Party, fighting for the Central Party, entertaining those who were in favour of a Central Party; and within the last few days he has been appointed Recorder of London. He still retains a seat in the House of Commons; and has all the powers of a Judge as Recorder of London. Why is he not tainting justice if I am? I know of no way in which you can argue this unless you lay down a general rule that any one who is dealing with the administration of justice is no longer to take part in public life as it concerns politics.
But your Lordships will not rest even there. What about Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, Licensing Justices? Is it to be laid down that no Chairman of Quarter Sessions is to go on a public platform? Is he not a Judge? Is he not brought a great deal more in contact with the people and the administration of criminal law, with juries and witnesses and all that goes to make up a trial, than I am, reading a dull book at the desk there and having no contact with them at all? Are they to be debarred from going on public platforms? But you cannot even rest there. What about Justices of the Peace who conic in direct contact with the people every day, in every district? Very often the Justices of the Peace are active politicians in their own districts. They are often popular because they are Justices of the Peace. Are you going to lay it down that no Justice of the Peace, who has to adjudicate on matters arising out of strikes or Income Tax collection, and a Thousand other things, is ever to take part in politics?
If not, I ask you why is my honour to be besmirched any more than the honour

937
of a Justice of the Peace? What have I ever done in my long career to give the right to any man to point the finger of scorn at me in such conditions as these? I have put before you something of the whole case with which you have to deal. I do not object to an inquiry, nor do I object to a change in the law, but it must embrace every one from the Lord Chancellor down to the humblest justice who administers justice as best he can, very often under difficult conditions. So far as I am concerned, I took every precaution that a man could take under very trying and difficult circumstances, as your Lordships will appreciate in a moment.
I was not only a Lord of Appeal, but I had for many years been the Leader of the Ulster Party in the House of Commons, and I had entered into a solemn Covenant. When was first welcomed to your Lordships' House by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House he did me the kindness to express a wish that I should take part in all the proceedings of the House, or in any of the proceedings in which I desired to take part. I saw no disinclination on his part to warn me that as a Law Lord I was a suspected Judge if I dared to say a word on a political subject, and I am sure the noble Marquess has not in the slightest degree repented of his expressed wish, because of the fact that I have been unable to concur in the policy which he has advocated in relation to Ireland.
But that was not all. Before I ever spoke in this House—and I had been here for some seven or eight months before I spoke, as I had hoped I never would speak again, for Heaven knows that in my long experience in the House of Commons and at the Bar I have had quite enough—I asked the Lord Chancellor to see me, and I told him this. I said to him: "I am at the same time a Law Lord and a Judge, but I am also a Covenanter." I said that nothing on earth would induce me to break my Covenant, and that if I was not free to do all I could for Ulster, baying regard to the way she has trusted me for years, and having regard to the deep feelings I have for her welfare in the future, I would be quite willing to resign. The Lord Chancellor assured me that there was no reason for that, and I understood I had the fullest liberty, as had any other Peer, to take part in the political controversy relating to Ulster.
938
I am now willing to resign if I have done anything that is wrong; if your Lordships say I have done anything that is wrong. What do you think I care for my office, or salary, as compared with my honour? No, it is as nothing to me, much as I value being in your Lordships' House. But if the time comes when there arises a controversy as to whether my honour or my salary can be kept, I need not tell your Lordships that I prefer my honour to the salary. Therefore, I place these facts before you. If you condemn my action condemn it on solid ground. Draw in your own mind the distinction, if it is to be drawn, between myself and others who are carrying on the law, but believe me that as long as I hold my present office—I am sure it is hardly necessary to say it—like all the other noble and learned Lords who so frequently take part in your Lordships' House in a useful capacity, you may remain perfectly sure that the honour of justice will remain untarnished.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords. I shall attempt to imitate the tone and the temper of the observations which have fallen from the noble and learned Lord, and I shall equally attempt, step by step, to meet and deal with the argumentative case which the noble and learned Lord has made. Before I address myself to that task in detail I will attempt to clear away one or two points. In the first place, let me tell the noble and learned Lord that no observation has fallen from my lips, here or elsewhere, which could directly or indirectly be construed as a reflection upon the honour of the noble and learned Lord, or upon the integrity with which he discharges his functions as a Judge. I have, as, I know, has the noble and learned Lord, a deep respect for the Judiciary of this country, though we differ profoundly upon the topic which now engages our discussion. I have far too high a respect for it ever to have permitted myself, outside this House and before a public audience, to make a single disparaging allusion to one who was my colleague in the supreme Appellate. Court of this Empire. I have never cherished in my mind one ill-natured thought about the noble and learned Lord; even in the heat of political debate in this House, I think I have hardly or not at all uttered one ill-natured word about the noble and learned Lord; and I make it plain that I had and have, whether he values it or

939
whether he does not value it, a high admiration for the consistency of his public career and the devotion with which he has given expression to the convictions of a lifetime.
These are not the issues which I raise to-day. Those issues are graver ones, and, in dealing step by step with the argumentative case which the noble and learned Lord has made, I will omit, so far as my memory supports me, no illustration and no argument with which the noble and learned Lord has reinforced his speech. He has told your Lordships of the case of Lord Cairns, who was made a Peer in the year 1868 and who, before he was Lord Chancellor, took part in the debates on the Reform Bill. The most recent and the most authoritative biography of the Victorian Lord Chancellors, in discussing this question, said of the part played by Lord Cairns in the years which followed 1868, that "Lord Cairns, in accepting this Peerage under these circumstances, imitated the doubtful example of Lord Lyndhurst."
The noble and learned Lord instanced the ease of Lord Macnaghten, than whom no Law Lord was more respected in this House. He administered the law with distinguished learning for many years, and for all those years he sat in this House as a Law Lord. What were the illustrations of the political activities of Lord Macnaghten during this long period which the noble and learned Lord presented to your Lordships? He said that Lord Macnaghten took part in the debates upon the Irish Land Acts. He did. A pattern of reticence and of learning among the present Law Lords, Lord Atkinson, has taken part—I think the only part he has played in the long years that he has spent as a Law Lord—in our debates upon the Irish Land Act, and I tan conceive of no topic, in view of the technical and difficult problems which present themselves in those discussions, upon which a Law Lord could contribute more. The only other illustration which, from those long years, the noble and learned Lord was able to give of the political activities of Lord Macnaghten, in this House or out of this House, was that at the close of his life—not that he made a speech here, or a speech upon the platform, but that he signed the Covenant. I cannot think that a very valuable or striking illustration upon the topic with which we are concerned to deal is afforded by the case of Lord Macnaghten.
940
The instance of Lord Macnaghten is, however, more valuable than any case which could be founded upon the case of Lord Cairns, for this reason, and for this reason only, that in the year 1876, nearly fifty years ago, a change was made in the circumstances and in the constitutional position of those who take part in judicial decisions in this House. Then, for the first time, the Law Lords were introduced. They were given life Peerages. They are members of this House, according to the practice of this House, and by the theory, as I understand it, of their position as Peers they are entitled to the same freedom of debate—so run the terms of their patents—as any other Peer. I nevertheless commend this proposition to your Lordships, that taking the long period of time, almost fifty years, since this completely new stage in the history of Judges in the House of Lords was introduced, there has grown up a tradition, only twice, so far as I know, in any serious case violated, that those who sit in this House be cause they are Judges, those who are elevated to this House only in order that they may discharge judicial duties, shall not take part in what all of us understand to be purely Party debates.
I know of one case, and of one only in very recent days, in which that rule was violated. It was an instance cited and relied upon by one of the noble and learned Lords who took part recently in our debates—the case of Lord Robertson. Lord Robertson made a speech in this House as a Law Lord upon the subject of Tariff Reform, and I remember to this day, though then a young practising member of the Bar, the criticism and the reprobation which the attitude of Lord Robertson in that debate excited, not only at the Bar, but generally, as I recollect it, in political circles. If I put on one side the speech made by Lord Robertson, and equally the signing of the Covenant by Lord Macnaghten, I am in the memory of old members of this House when I lay it down that, with the exception of those who have preceded me—and of them I shall say something in a moment—it has, been for fifty years the unbroken practice of the Law Lords who sit in this House to observe that convention of the Constitution that they shall not interpose in Party or partisan debates.
The noble and learned Lord then proceeded to establish a series of classifications in which he placed his colleagues,

941
and first of all, he took the case of the Lord Chancellor. Let me deal with the case, as your Lordships will expect at my hands, both fully and frankly. The decision of our ancestors in relation to the office which I hold may have been a wise one or it may have been an unwise one. I am not concerned to argue that point to-day, although at the proper time I shall be found fully prepared to argue it. It is sufficient for me to soy that for centuries our Constitutional Law has tolerated an admitted anomaly in the office of the Lord Chancellor. It is an anomaly, a violation of that constitutional theory of the separation of powers, insisted upon by Montesquieu, and has been a commonplace among writers on Common Law. The motive which animated them, whether right or wrong, is not the subject of either ambiguity or controversy. It. was that they took the view that in the interests alike of the Executive and of the Judiciary themselves it was convenient and desirable that there should be a connecting link—that there should be, in other words, a high judicial personate who was not divorced from membership of the Cabinet, and who was able to impress his political colleagues with tie views of the Judiciary and of the legal profession generally, while at the same time he was able to keep his judicial colleagues in contact not, with Party issues with those public considerations from which, as they thought, it was not wise completely to divorce the Judicial Bench.
I am not arguing whether 300 or 400 years ago, or in the later period in which the controversy became even more acute, in the days of Lord Selborne, our ancestors were right or wrong in tolerating an admitted anomaly, but, I am arguing this: that it having become a commonplace among writers upon these topics whether the decision was right or wrong, that there was that one anomalous case, that. to reason from the position which I occupy as Lord Chancellor, and which was occupied by illustrious men for centuries in this country, that you are to release the whole of the Bench in this country to undertake such partisan activities as in their choice and discretion they decide, is indeed to found an amazing doctrine upon a narrow foundation.
The noble and learned Lord then dealt with the case of the ex-Lord Chancellors. Let me make my point upon their position equally clear. When a man becomes Lord
942
Chancellor it almost invariably happens that he sacrifices a very much larger income at the Bar in order that he may undertake that office. The decision of our ancestors was that in order to secure, so far as possible, that men of first-class professional attainments should be anxious to attain to the high dignity of the office which I unworthily fill, they should be given a pension of £5,000 a year when they cease to occupy the position of Lord Chancellor; and indeed, and even more under existing conditions, where a man possessing gifts which are in the least likely to bring him to the Woolsack can command a professional income of £20,000 or £30,000 or even £40,000 a year, if it. is an important purpose of public policy that the ablest men in the country should sit upon the Woolsack, it would not, I think, among reasonable people, be counted an unreasonable thing that a pension should be given to anyone who disables himself, according to admitted practice, from further competition at the Bar.
Therefore, within a day or two after a man becomes Lord Chancellor steps are taken, whether he renders judicial service or not, to secure him in the possession of a pension of £5,000 a year; and it has been laid down, over and over again, by the highest legal authorities in this country, that the pension which is so given to a Lord chancellor is not, even in morality or in honour, dependent upon the continued discharge of any judicial duty whatsoever. In those circumstances those who have formerly held the office of Lord Chancellor have been accustomed, again throughout the centuries, to regard themselves, and to be regarded, as indeed they are, as men who have combined, in the anomalous circumstances which I have already considered, political and judicial functions and as potential political Ministers, and as men who, according to the example and practice of men as illustrious as Lyndhurst, Cairns, Brougham and Selborne, and a dozen others I could name, have, without a word of public criticism, continued to take part alike in political and judicial functions.
The noble and learned Lord asked: "Does it make a difference in this question that a man is paid a salary?" Let inn answer that question in the same practice that I am attempting to employ in the whole of this difficult matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Cave, made an observation

943
in the course of our recent discussions which seemed to me to throw an illuminating light upon the matter. He had taken some part in the Irish discussions. I pointed out that rapidly it was becoming impossible to constitute a Court to deal with Irish Appeals, because almost every available Lord had taken, or was threatening to take, some part in the debate, to which Lord Cave replied: "I should not think of sitting on an Irish Appeal, having regard to the fact that I have taken part in an Irish debate." What does that mean? It means that because noble Lords have not observed what I have defined as a clear convention of the Constitution, they have prevented themselves, by speaking in political debate, from discharging those judicial functions which they are paid to perform, and which they were put in this House that they might perform, and I say it does make an immense and whether or not the noble and learned Lord in question is discharging those functions because he chooses to do so, being under no compulsion or any obligation to do so, and being a man who may be made Lord Chancellor again, as were Lyndhurst and Brougham, within two months of the period when they left that office.
The noble and learned Lord then took a third class—namely, the class of Judges who, after long service in the lower Courts, are given Peerages and come to this House clothed with the same rank, and theoretically, and perhaps actually, armed with the same privileges as any one of your Lordships. I have many members of that class in my mind. In the more than three years that I have sat upon the Woolsack I have carefully observed the part which has been played by those colleagues of mine in the final Court of Appeal. Lord Phillimore, Lord Wrenbury, and Lord Parmoor are names which have occurred to the minds of all of you. I say plainly that I have observed in the case of all those noble and learned Lords a degree of reticence, when subjects of Party discussion have arisen, which could not be exaggerated. Many of those noble and learned Lords sit upon the cross benches. I have never heard one of them in this House, or out of this House, say one word which could be construed as the expression or the argument of what could fairly be described as a political partisan. And I think they have realised, most thoroughly realised, the exceptional position
944
in which they conceive themselves to stand, and I think they have most fully obeyed and followed the convention of the Constitution which I believe to have grown up during the course of the last fifty years.
Now, following step by step the argument of the noble and learned Lord, I approach the case of the class of Judges to which he himself belongs, the Law Lords; and, before I make the observations which I shall ask leave to make upon that subject, I have this to point out. So far from attempting—and, indeed, it would have been a vain and impossible attempt—to distinguish the case of the Law Lords from that of the Judges of the Court of Appeal, or of the Judges sitting at Nisi Prius, or of the County Court Judges, the argument of the noble and learned Lord, if it possesses—as I am sure it did possess—consistency at all, goes this length, that, just as he claims for himself and for his colleagues, the other Law Lords, the right of intervening when they choose, and how they choose, in subjects of Party discussion in this House; just as he claims for himself and for his colleagues, the other Law Lords, that they may go upon any platform in the country and assail with invective the Government of the day, or, if they choose, shelter the Government of the day by the protection of their rhetoric, so equally he claims that it is the desirable system, nay, that it is the system which, in fact, prevails at this moment in this country, that every Judge of the Court of Appeal can go to Burton, if he shares the views of the noble and learned Lord, and can deliver on the platform there such a speech, scathing and vehement in conception and expression, as that which the noble and learned Lord thought proper to deliver a few days ago.
Let us pause to contemplate the disastrous consequences of a doctrine as novel as I proclaim it to be revolutionary. What are the consequences? Are Prime Ministers and Cabinets, and the Lord Chancellors who advise them, when, on a vacancy in the final Court of Appeal of the British Empire, they ask from what source are they to derive the great Judges who are to inherit and carry on the traditions of what is still the greatest and the proudest Court in the world—are Prime Ministers and Cabinets to ask what are the politics of the Law Lord who is to be appointed here? Are they to ask whether he is a man who will support the Government of the day, who, by the possession of apt

945
and subtle political gifts, will lend his help and his eloquence to a tottering Ministry? Or are they to ask whether he is a man learned and deeply studied in the law, and able by his erudition to contribute fresh lustre to the judgment seat?
Carry the matter a little further. We have received to-day—introduced, fitly enough, by the noble and learned Lord who himself for many years occupied the position of a Law Officer in this country —we have received to-day, and we welcome him here, the Lord Chief Justice of England. We have had a long succession of distinguished men, members of this House, who have occupied the position of Lord Chief Justice. Would it be a welcome innovation, logically involved as it is in every sentence of the argument of the noble and learned Lord, that the Lord Chief Justice should sit behind my noble friend who leads the House, or should sit behind the Leader of the Opposition on the other side and take part in every Party debate that arises, or should go down—according to the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned Lord—and intervene at the by-election which at this moment is taking place in Leicester?
Let us carry it still further. If this doctrine be an accepted one, is a Law Lord qualified to be Leader of the Opposition? If not, why not? A Law Lord is very likely to possess knowledge—is, indeed, certain to possess knowledge— and very certain, as your Lordships know, to possess argumentative gifts, and the power of expression. Supposing that a Law Lord develops those gifts and brings them to a high pitch of Parliamentary proficiency, so that he is undoubtedly the ablest speaker who sits in your Lordships' House—outside, it may be for the moment, the ranks of the Government—is the proposal gravely brought forward that a Law Lord, a Judge of the final Court of Appeal, is to sit on that bench day after day and night after night, assailing and attacking the political policy of His Majesty's Government? And if not, on the theory of the noble and learned Lord, why not? And as I pointed out a few days ago, is the Master of the Rolls, who is also a Peer, and a member of this House, to come and add his contribution to the cheerful judicial hurly-burly which we are promised in the circumstances indicated by the noble and learned Lord?
And what will be the example spread by this doctrine disseminated in high places
946
upon the Judges of Nisi Prius and the Judges in the Court of Appeal? No one could have failed to notice in the course of the last twenty years the immense increase of judicial credit and reputation in the country, taken as a whole. Sixty years ago looser methods were adopted and were tolerated. Sixty years ago it was not uncommon to find Judges sitting in the House of Commons. Gradually evolving a policy which I thought, until recent times, had become the subject of universal admission, those who were interested in our constitutional practice found that the only road alike of sanity and of safety was to exclude our Judges from all, even the slightest, participation in political affairs. And now all this is threatened, and we are told, indeed, that the security upon which all depends had already been undermined and almost destroyed.
And what are the illustrations that are used to establish this conclusion? We are told that the Recorder of London still occupies a seat in the House of Commons. I am not aware of the facts of this particular case, but I know that the policy of the City of London has in recent times been to impose it as a condition upon the appointment of all their judicial officers that they shall cease to be members of the House of Commons. I should be astonished, indeed, to learn that the recent appointment of Sir Ernest Wild to be the Recorder of the City of London had not been accompanied by a condition of that kind, to be either immediately operative or operative in the near future. Nor can I pretend to be impressed by the illustrations drawn by the noble and learned Lord from the cases of Recorders in the House of Commons, of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions and of Justices of the Peace. All those persons discharge functions which, while they are important, are nevertheless, in comparison with the responsibility of the duties discharged by that purely professional class to whom the high judicial business of this country is committed, negligible. You could not exclude that large class from a share in politics without almost paralysing the power of large sections of our fellow countrymen to take the part that naturally and necessarily falls to them in public affairs.
We are confronted here, and so far as I know for the first time in our history, with a wider claim. That claim is no less than this—that every Judge in this country should be entitled to fling himself into that

947
Party strife from which the progress of generations has secluded him. In the observations which I have felt bound to make I have abstained from a single word which would legitimately affront the sensibility of the noble and learned Lord. I have made it plain, as far as I can make it plain, that I regard the suggestion as ludicrous that he would be diverted from the strictest and highest conception of judicial duty which I know him to entertain, by any political view which he formed or which he expressed. The view I am putting before your Lordships is not that his judicial independence would be impaired or tainted. It is that it is necessary that the public should be under no delusion upon this point. It is necessary that there should be no ground of suspicion as to the motives which could operate upon the mind of a Judge.
The noble and learned Lord has said that he would be prepared, if a rule was laid down to which he found himself unable to assent, to resign his office. In this connection the noble and learned Lord has recalled a conversation which he had with me some weeks ago and, inasmuch as my recollection of that which took place, though it corresponds, as might be expected, upon almost all points with that given by the noble and learned Lord, does not precisely and at all points correspond, I think it my duty to suggest for his reconsideration that what actually took place between us can quite accurately be described in the language which I now employ. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to come and consult me, as head of the Bench, as to my conception of his position in case he found himself compelled to attack the Irish policy of the Government. I told the noble and learned Lord what I have told your Lordships since—that in my view a convention had grown up and was generally accepted in this House under which extreme Party views were not expressed in debate by Law Lords. But I told him then, as I have since told your Lordships, that I was convinced that, the convention being a convention, the overwhelming majority of your Lordships' House would feel that it would neither he reasonable nor possible to ask him, who had played so great a part in these controversies, to refrain from expressing and making plain his view upon them in the debates which would follow. I also said, and the reception which your Lordships gave to my observations in the
948
same sense a few nights ago have confirmed me in my view that I was right, that your Lordships would wish to treat this case as an exception to what I conceived to be the practice which had been almost universally observed now for many years.
But I most earnestly hope that it has not escaped the recollection of the noble and learned Lord that he most pointedly asked me the question whether the opinion which I was expressing to him would cover the case of speeches made against the Government and the Irish policy of the Government in the country, and I most plainly told the noble and learned Lord that in my judgment the two cases were wholly dissimilar and I did not think that he would be held to be protected from legitimate criticism if he carried his campaign into the country.
LORD CARSON: I do not want to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, but may I say, as he is giving an account of the conversation, that it was never put to me—I am speaking from recollection, of course, and I do not want to make flat contradictions—that I should be undertaking any exceptional course. I was told that I had the same rights as any other Peer. I informed the Lord Chancellor that I must keep my Covenant. Nothing was said about the country at all, and I assumed from what he had said that, as I had given that information that I had to keep my Covenant, what he was stating covered the whole case. I may have been wrong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nothing will induce me to enter into any conflict of recollection between the noble and learned Lord and myself as to what took place many weeks ago. I have my recollection, and the noble and learned Lord has his. I should never have touched upon this subject in any circumstances if the noble and learned Lord had not already given his account of the conversation as he recollected it. I pursue it no further. I make it plain that there is a distinction, and the distinction is elementary. It is this, that the only possible excuse that can be made for a Law Lord dealing with subjects of acute political controversy is that he is exercising in this House his rights as a Peer of Parliament. If he has not that excuse, it comes into plain collision with the universally accepted rule that the salaried Judges of this country

949
are neither expected nor allowed to take part in political controversy.
I have said what I had to say upon this subject. It is more distasteful to me than I can describe that I should be drawn into a public disputation on a subject so delicate with a colleague who sits with me in Court. I have dealt as far as I can with the arguments as he has advanced them, and I would, in conclusion, most earnestly press upon your Lordships that it is a possible view that the Woolsack as we have known it for centuries should be modified. If and when it is brought forward I should be prepared to consider that proposal upon its merits. The noble and learned Lord has cheered that suggestion. What is involved in his approval of the suggestion that the one solitary anomaly should be swept away? Surely there is involved that conclusion to which the common sense and the judicial experience of the noble and learned Lord must compel him—that if, in the one case where substantial compensating advantages have been shown by experience to exist, in spite of all those advantages, in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord that anomaly possibly should be abolished and swept away in the case of the Woolsack, how can it be argued that our Judiciary, the pride and the example of the world, should be contaminated and made suspect by daily and weekly contact with acute political problems?
LORD DUNEDIN: I ask your Lordships to bear with a few words from a Law Lord who has not only never made a political speech, but has never made a speech at all, in this House. Although I have had the honour of being in your Lordships' House for seventeen years I have never opened my mouth in it, except to answer a question, until to-night. I hope your Lordships will believe me when I say that the last thing in the world I wish is to pose as a judge or even as a critic of what my noble and learned friends who are my colleagues have done in the past or propose to do in the future. May I be so egotistical as to remind your Lordships of one fact about myself, that before I came here, I sat for over fourteen years in the House of Commons, for eleven of which I sat on the Government Bench. I see many of my old colleagues around me now. It is certainly the fact that both in the House of Commons and on the platform I did have the opportunity of making many
950
political speeches. I had the honour of getting a seat in your Lordships' House in 1905, associated at the same time with a judicial appointment. In 1913 I was made a Lord of Appeal.
As I have said, I never have made a political speech, and I have refrained of set purpose. I wish to tell your Lordships, why. It has always seemed to me that the end that a Judge ought to have before him—I have set it before myself, with what success it is not for me to say—was first of all to decide the cases upon which he has to adjudicate rightly, but secondly (and this is almost as important as the first) to secure that after he has decided the case, the litigant who has not succeeded should go away feeling that he has had a fair hearing, and that that feeling should be communicated by litigants to the general public. If you are to have a fair hearing, a Judge must have two qualities. He must be absolutely impartial, and he must have the capacity to be convinced.
As to impartiality, if one had nothing to think about except what opinion your Lordships in this House would have of one, I should think it quite possible to take part in every political debate. It is not, of course, a question of honour. There is something more. Persons like your Lordships know quite well that by practice we, who are in the profession, do manage to get a certain detachedness of mind which makes it perfectly possible for a man, however keenly he feels on any question, when he comes to deal with the same question it may be, or something that fringes upon it, to deal with it in a judicial spirit and not to be affected by any views which he may hold, however strongly. But I have always thought not about people like your Lordships, but the man in the street, and I cannot help thinking that the man in the street will not have the same complete confidence in one's impartiality if one mixes oneself up in political questions. For that reason, and that reason alone, I have carried out the course of conduct which I have indicated.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: My Lords, we have heard a great deal which, I think, bears rather on the question of what the law ought to be than on what the law is. There may be very good reasons for applying the prohibition against political life in the case of all Judges. If such a prohibition is to be applied, I should think that there is just as strong a case—perhaps

951
a stronger case—for applying it to such Judges as Recorders, who come into contact with the daily life of the people to a very great extent, as there is for applying it only to those who sit on a more exalted Tribunal. We are not engaged, however, in a discussion of what the law ought to be, but in a discussion as to what the law is. In some comments that have been made upon the remarks made by the Lord Chancellor last Monday, whose speech I heard in this House, it has been assumed that he had given a ruling upon the point, That he had laid down the law, and that that was the law which for the future would have to be observed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say so.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: The Lord Chancellor did not say so, but certainly some comments in the Press show that it was taken as a ruling, and some expressions which the Lord Chancellor used came, I think, very near a declaration—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of my opinion. I chose my language most carefully, and I plainly said that it was my opinion, and if the noble and learned Viscount will read what I said he will find that I was expressing only my own opinion.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: At the same time I think the Lord Chancellor will find that a good many people have thought that any expression of opinion proceeding from the Woolsack amounted to a rule. I am not saying that the Lord Chancellor laid it down as a rule. I am sure he would be the first to acknowledge that he has no authority whatever to make any rule in that matter, and he never attempted to do so. The opinion, therefore, of any member of your Lordships' House may be given, and he will not be in the least fettered in giving it by the circumstance that the Lord Chancellor has expressed a contrary opinion. I am certain that the Lord Chancellor would admit that. It is really elementary that it is for the House itself and not for any member of the House, however exalted, to give a ruling on any point of order or law affecting the House. I therefore feel myself at perfect liberty to criticise very shortly what was said by the Lord Chancellor on Monday and to-night on this point. In everything I say I hope I shall be speaking with the perfect respect
952
which is due to the high and commanding position which the Lord Chancellor occupies in this House and must always occupy.
I believe that the principle on which the Lord Chancellor based the views he expressed on Monday is erroneous. He proceeded upon the analogy of the Judicial Bench—the Common Law Bench and Judges of Equity. It is perfectly clear, with regard to those Judges, that there is a long and unbroken tradition that they should not take part in political life. I have never heard but of one exception, and that was in a case of the Master of the Rolls. I dare say many of your Lordships may have read the most brilliant speech delivered by Lord Macaulay in opposition to the proposal to exclude the Master of the Rolls from the House of Commons. That speech did what very few speeches have done—it changed the votes of the House, and the measure was thrown out. However, after a few years, when Lord Macaulay's speech had been forgotten, the decision was reversed. That was the one exception to the rule that Judges—I am speaking of Common Law or Equity Judges—should not take part in politics.
In these circumstances the rule with regard to them is inflexible. There are the very best reasons for that rule, particularly with regard to the Common Law Judges, because to them is entrusted the supreme control of the administration of the Criminal Law. To the great mass of the people of this country the law is the Criminal Law. They regard that as the law which it is most important for the country to have administered with perfect firmness, but at the same time with perfect impartiality. In the case of the Common Law Judges they, of course, are the guardians of the honour of the country in the administration of the Criminal Law. In their case there can be no doubt whatever of the wisdom of the rule which excludes them from taking part in the politics of the day, as it might lead to some doubt as to their perfect impartiality wherever a case had anything of a political complexion.
I listened with the greatest interest to Lord Dunedin, and with his general principles I entirely agree. But with regard to the practice he has pursued since he has been in this House I can only say that that is a matter which every Law Lord must decide according to his own views of what is right and proper in his own case. It is entirely for him to decide.

953
What I am concerned with is this. There is no such convention, no such rule, as has been assumed by the Lord Chancellor to exist. The Lord Chancellor takes the case of the ordinary Judges. He says that there is a well-established rule with regard to them. They are Judges, and the Lords of Appeal here are also Judges. Therefore, if the Common Law Judges are excluded from politics it follows that the Lords of Appeal here, being Judges, are also to be excluded. That is not the way in which the Law of England has been built up. Every one admits that it does not apply to all Judges. It does not apply to Recorders; and the question we are concerned with is, whether the rule, as the Lord Chancellor conceives it, is one which has any foundation in the law of Parliament, or in those conventions which have been accepted by members of the Judicial Tribunal. Surely there is all the difference in the world between the two cases.
The administration of justice on appeal in the House of Lords was for a long time, down to 1874, vested in the House of Lords, and in practice it was administered by the. Lord Chancellor of the day and the ex-Lord Chancellors. I am speaking now only of recent times. If you go back no further than the eighteenth century you will find that many cases were decided by the votes of Peers who had no pretensions to have studied the law or to have held any judicial office. In one very notable case the House of Lords acted, and some nineteen Peers voted with Lord Thurlow in opposition to the judgment that was appealed from, and the matter was carried by their votes, if I am not mistaken, in opposition to the opinion of some of the other lawyers who were in the House.
But what I wish to point out is this, that the House of Lords, in the administration of law on appeal, acted through the Lord Chancellor and ex-Lord Chancellors in the recent times with which I was dealing, and that every one engaged in the administration of law in this House was perfectly free to take part in politics, and did take part in politics. Then it was felt that the House, for the purpose of appeals, wanted strengthening, and the Lords of Appeal were added in 1874. Suggestions had been made—they are familiar to many of your Lordships—that the House of Lords should be replaced by a Court of
954
Appeal of a more strictly professional character. That suggestion broke down, and one reason why it broke down was that Scotland insisted that Scottish appeals should be taken only in the House of Lords; and it is to the House of Lords-that appeals conic from Scotland and England.
Then the Lords of Appeal were appointed for the purpose of strengthening the House, and they were, for this purpose, appointed members of the House. They came in and took part in the continuing traditions of the House of Lords, to help those who had hitherto administered the law, who took an active part in politics and whose right to take part no man denied. I say, therefore, that there is every presumption that these Lords of Appeal came in on exactly the same terms, as to the right to take part in polities, if they so pleased, as the Lord Chancellor and the ex-Lord Chancellors who had preceded them, and who, by themselves, had discharged the duties of the appellate jurisdiction of this House. There is no, trace of any condition restricting the Law Lords from a right to take part in debates, and I think our debates might have been a good deal poorer if there had been any such rule. Those who have listened— I am sorry to say I did not have that privilege, front an unavoidable cause—to the remarks made by Lord Sumner in the course of a highly contentious measure lately before your Lordships, will agree that the debates would have been poorer if there had been any law which excluded a Peer, because he was a Lord of Appeal, from taking part in debates of a political character.
Where is it that this convention, to which the Lord Chancellor has repeatedly referred, is found? I think he said there was a clear convention. I say there is no, such convention. There is no trace of it. The whole history of the House of Lords is against the idea that there was any such convention when it was deliberately decided that the House of Lords should go on—with the reinforcement of a certain number of Lords of Appeal. The whole argument of the Lord Chancellor was really based upon the view that because Judges of the High Court are debarred from taking part in politics therefore the Lords of Appeal should also be debarred. I say they came here to strengthen this House. They succeeded to all its traditions and to all the rights of Peers. If there had been any intention to limit their rights and put

955
them on a different platform as regards freedom of discussion from other Peers, it would have been signified at the time. It was never heard of, and the idea that in some way or other Lords of Appeal are -on a different footing from other members of your Lordships' House who take part in the proceedings of this House is, I submit, one that has no solid foundation.
Reference has been made to some very distinguished Lords of Appeal who took part in the proceedings of this House in matters which were strictly political. The truth is that each Lord of Appeal must decide for himself whether the occasion is -one which calls for his intervention, and what the nature and character of that intervention should be. I protest against the idea that there is any rule excluding any members of your Lordships' House from taking part in your debates and exercising the full privileges which other Peers possess. I understood in one case, from -what the Lord Chancellor then said, that he conceded this as regards debates in your Lordships' House. I may have been mistaken.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord was mistaken. I did not say I conceded it; I said that, founding myself upon fifty years' unbroken practice, as I read the history of those fifty years, I claimed that a convention had arisen and existed. I said that the case of the noble and learned Lord would, in my view, be treated in the House as a whole as a sufficiently individual one to encourage them to waive the convention which in my clear view existed.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I certainly supposed that he based his speech the other day upon the noble and learned Lord's appearance upon a public platform. The question with which I am dealing is the right to take part in debates, even of a political character, in this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble and learned Lord wants to know exactly what I said, he can read the OFFICIAL REPORT. I said that undoubtedly there was the theoretic right, and that it was for your Lordships, and for your Lordships alone, to decide upon its scope and applicability; but that in my view, founded upon fifty years' unbroken practice, the convention had arisen that Law Lords should not take part in our debates of a political character.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I think that if the Lord Chancellor will re-read what he said, he will find that it is open to the assumption that what he was objecting to was the noble and learned Lord's appearance upon a public platform, but I now perfectly understand that the Lord Chancellor is consistent, and that he contends that a Lord of Appeal ought not to take part in a political debate in this House. I can only say that the rule is one that has no authority. He says there is a convention. Who are the parties to the convention, and when was it made? It has been very much honoured in the breach, and, indeed, I do not believe that there is any such convention. Many Lords of Appeal may have followed the practice which Lord Dunedin has said has been his own, but I contend that the action or inaction of certain Lords of Appeal cannot bind other members of the House who happen to belong to that category, and that to put the Lords of Appeal, because they are Judges, on the same footing as the Judges of the High Court, with regard to whom there is an unbroken tradition of centuries that they do not take part in politics, is to misconceive the real character of the case.
The doctrine which the Lord Chancellor has enunciated as regards there not being a perfect right and freedom to take part in political debates is a novel one, and to my mind it is, in point of law, erroneous. It is for each Lord of Appeal to decide for himself how far he ought to go in dealing with politics. As regards any supposed distinction between speeches in the House, covered by the privilege of Parliament, and speeches outside the House, not covered by any such privilege, I cannot imagine that any such distinction could be maintained. It is, I suggest, as open to a Peer who happens to be a Lord of Appeal to express his views on politics outside the House as it is open to him to express them in the House. It must be left to his own good feeling, and to his own sense of what is proper, to decide how far he should go and what he should say.
I shall not enter into any criticism of what the Lord Chancellor has said in regard to the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Carson, at Burton. I have not read anything except a very abridged report of that speech, and that only in a very cursory way, and if I were to go into

957
the speech I should certainly need to read it with greater attention and in a much fuller report. I remember one criticism made by the Lord Chancellor which struck me as rather an odd one. He said that the attack was not only bitter but dull. As to bitterness everyone must judge for himself, but I think everyone must make some allowance for the provocation which a loyal Irishman like my noble and learned friend has received from certain recent occurrences in that country. The other criticism was startling. The Lord Chancellor said that it was not only bitter but dull. I have heard many charges brought against my noble and learned friend, Lord Carson, but I never heard him accused of dullness, and the charge carries its condemnation on its face. He is never dull, and on this occasion Lord Carson was exercising the right which he supposed himself to possess of making a political speech, although outside Parliament. I regret that I find myself differing from the Lord Chancellor on a question of law of this kind, but entertaining the views that I do entertain, I have thought it right to put them before the House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, if I venture to intervene for a few moments in this discussion, it is because I think it is a matter which concerns not only the Law Lords who are members of your Lordships' House but also your Lordships as a whole. And, if I may make a personal remark, it is that the melancholy fact is borne upon me as I look along these benches that there is hardly any member of your Lordships' House who has had so long a time in it as I have myself, and I therefore have a considerable experience of debates as they are conducted in this House. Of course, my noble friend—I do not see him here—who leads the Opposition has been a member of this House longer than myself, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, has also been a member longer than I have, but, if I remember aright, he was not present at those great debates to which I would venture to ask your Lordships' attention for one moment, the debates of 1893. I think at that time the noble Marquess was serving his country either in Canada or in India. I remember perfectly well those great debates concerning the same great constitutional question as that which has been before your Lordships' House during the last few weeks. I came up to the House and attended these
958
debates, being all the time only too much under the influence of the eloquence of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and of my noble and learned friend, Lord Crawford. I listened to all those debates, and I heard speeches which remain among the greatest examples of oratory to which, I suppose, I shall ever have the privilege of listening.
I would venture to say that there never was so clear a breach of the conventions and customs of this House as that which has been committed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, during the last few days. From that time to this I would venture to say that the custom has been well observed. There was one instance, referred to by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that of Lord Robertson, who made a speech on Free Trade. I confess that that speech appealed to me from beginning to end, and I heartily applauded it, but I also remember that there was a general sense amongst men of all Parties in your Lordships' House that it would have been better if he had not made it. Since that time there has been one other example. The noble and learned Lord whom I see sitting by the table made, if he will allow me to say so, an unfortunate impression upon a great many people with the speech which he made upon India last year, or the year before, and I would venture to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he thinks that since he made that speech he is so acceptable to the people of India in the case of Indian appeals which come before your Lordships' House.
LORD SUMNER: I do.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I will not say that the noble and learned Lord is alone in his opinion, but it is certainly not shared by the vast majority of the people of India, and that seems to me to be of even greater consequence. The fact of the matter is that it is well-known that it is exceedingly rare, almost unknown, for members of your Lordships' House who are Law Lords to take part in political debates. If your Lordships will allow another personal reminiscence, for ten years I had the privilege of listening to all the debates which took place in this House from the time when the Liberal Government came into office in 1905, until 1915. Great subjects were debated, and both sides brought up their greatest

959
orators, but on no occasion was there intervention on the part of any Law Lord comparable to that made by Lord Carson. I would even venture to appeal to a negative argument in this case—the argument that we were dealing with Irish questions, that there were Irish Lords of Appeal sitting in this House at that time, and that they did not take part in the discussions, although, according to the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned Viscount, they would have been perfectly well able to do so.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I remind him that Lord Atkinson took repeated part in the Irish debates at that time. I think that should be placed on record.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble and learned Lord, as has been referred to in the course of this debate, did make speeches, especially I think on the Irish land question, but it is perfectly obvious that there is more than one way of intervening in these debates. It is possible, even on a question of acute political controversy, to make a speech so judicial in tone as in no way likely to affect a subsequent decision when delivered by a noble Lord sitting in a different capacity in this House. It is, I think, quite clear, too, that there is a very real distinction between making an attack upon the Government in this House and making it upon a political platform in the country. A party political platform in the country is where the noble and learned Lord made that speech of which we complain most deeply, and I regret it particularly from the point of view of the future of your Lordships' House. There are difficult times ahead, and there will be grave questions raised as to the reform of your Lordships' House. It seems to me most important that we should keep distinct the legislative and the judicial aspects of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What about the Lord Chancellor?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am, of course, quite prepared to deal with that question, though it will make my speech longer than I had meant it to be. The position of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack is perfectly well known to the Constitution. He always has been a political officer. No doubt the noble Marquess has read the
960
Report issued by Lord Bruce's Committee, and will remember that in that Report there are definite recommendations that the office of the Lord Chancellor should be divided, so that the functions which he administers as a Minister of Justice should be separated from those which he administers as a member of the Cabinet. I think it is upon those lines that the thought of the country is proceeding at the present time, but in any case it is well known to every body that the position of the Lord Chancellor always has been entirely different from that of the Law Lords, who occupy judicial seats in this House. I remember that great complaint was made at one time against those belonging to my own Party, that they did create, or were supposed to create, a prejudice against your Lordships' House as a legislative body, because it had given certain judicial decisions which were contrary to the welfare of certain classes in this country Accusations of that kind, whether well founded or not, are far more likely to be made in the future if the unfortunate example of Lord Carson is followed.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I think your Lordships will expect me to say a word or two before this very interesting debate comes to a close. With one observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, who opened the discussion, I am sure we shall be in agreement, and that was when he remarked, in his opening sentences, that no personal flavour whatsoever attached to this discussion. It was true not only of his speech but of the speeches of all those who followed, and a debate more free from any such complexion, or argued upon a higher level of political expediency and historical precedent, I think your Lordships can seldom have listened to.
It may be thought that there is small place in a discussion like this for anyone who is not a lawyer or a Judge, or who is destitute of judicial experience, to intervene, and undoubtedly it is the case that this debate has, naturally enough, been almost entirely in the hands of those who have either been Law Lords, or who are Law Lords, or of those who have occupied the most distinguished position which the House offers to a public man—namely, the tenancy of the Woolsack. It is not, therefore, for a moment, from that point of view that I would presume to have any

961
right to address you at all, but I think that in the position which I happen to occupy I am entitled to look at this matter from the point of view from which those of us who are not lawyers and not Law Lords probably do regard it—namely, the point of view of the traditions, customs, dignity and honour of this House. It is from that point of view, and that point only, that I venture, in a few remarks, to deal with the matter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, said that there is no rule dealing with this case, and the same remark was repeated later on by Lord Finlay. That is quite true. It is really remarkable how small a part of the traditional and conventional observance of your Lordships' House rests upon written or printed rule. If you take the Standing Orders of the House, this little book which I hold in my hand is so concise in character, and suggests so many apparent omissions, that the commentary written upon it and published in the same form occupies double the length of the Rules themselves, and unquestionably in these Rules these is nothing which has any relation at all to the problem we are here discussing. But everybody knows that outside these printed Rules there has grown up, in the passage of time, and there does exist, and we all observe, a great unwritten code of traditional observance, based on custom, and based on more than custom—based on a sense of expediency and right, and consecrated by the almost unbroken observance not of years but of generations.
Does this present convention (because it is as a convention that I am arguing it) fall within the class of these unwritten rules? I think it does, my Lords, and I am astonished to find anybody in your Lordships' House, and most of all anybody occupying the position of an ex-Lord Chancellor, seriously advancing the opposite contention. This convention that Law Lords and Lords of Appeal should not ordinarily take part in our political discussions and should dissociate themselves from any evidence of partiality or political partisanship, I have always understood to be the counterpart of the convention, also unwritten, by which all of your Lordships who are Peers of Parliament refrain from taking part in the proceedings of this House when it sits in a Judicial capacity. I believe that any of your Lordships are entitled to come into this
962
House in the morning when the House is sitting in its judicial capacity and take your seats among noble and learned Lords ranged on those benches, and are not only entitled to take your seats there but are entitled, I believe, to participate in the judgment, and to vote, if they choose to do so, if it is a question of voting.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The whole House can vote.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The whole House is so entitled. And that this is the case is shown most emphatically by the printed Order Paper of your Lordships' House, I take the record of yesterday, when the House sat for Judicial business and I see that it begins as follows—
"The Lord Buckmaster—Sat Speaker."
That is to say, the House assembled, and he for the moment occupied that position. Prayers then took place. Then follows the list of the Judicial business that was undertaken. And finally we conic to the words—
"House adjourned during pleasure;"
—not "Court adjourned during pleasure," but—
"House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by the Lord Chancellor"—
indicating that any one of its, had we chosen to do so, might have participated in that session, although we refrained from doing so. I do not know what Lord Finlay would say, but that is not found in any Rule. On the contrary, if you look at the Rules the reverse is, if not stated, at any rate implied. But it is the most striking illustration of art unwritten convention, by which we all hold ourselves bound honourably to abide.
Upon what does this convention rest? It rests, as I have always understood, upon the sound principle, as it appears to me to be, that our Judges generally should be free from any suspicion of holding views, or expressing views, of any political bias. And the only remark I would make upon that, which has been accepted by everyone in the debate, is that upon that principle rests the respect with which the Judiciary is regarded, and the immunity which it enjoys.
The question, then, assumes this form: Does this general canon of abstention,

963
which is imposed upon the Judges as a body, and which has not been disputed in this debate, apply to the Law Lords in particular and the Lords of Appeal who have seats in your Lordships' House? The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Finlay, just now said that he could find no authority for this convention. If he meant no written authority, no doubt, because it is the essence of these conventions that they are not written. But surely the authority that he seeks lies in the degree of continuity in the practice which has been observed and in the general sense of the vast majority of your Lordships' House. Can there be any doubt upon that point? The noble Earl who spoke last, Lord Beauchamp, referred to a length of experience which I hope he will not mind my saying that his appearance belies. I can only refer to an experience, I think of thirteen years, in your Lordships' House, but many years before I had the honour of a seat here I used to attend the proceedings of the House, and certainly during the whole of that time I have never heard it questioned by a single individual that this convention not only existed, but that only in one or two cases had it been broken, and that in cases where it had been broken there was a general sense that the offender was severely to blame.
I recall very well the case of Lord Robertson. I was a member of the House of Commons with Lord Robertson. I was a great personal friend of his, and often did I enjoy those extraordinarily powerful dialectical speeches which he delivered in that House. I heard the speech in question in this House, and I remember thinking how foreign it was from all the traditions which had always been mentioned to me of the practice that ought to prevail, and did prevail here. And that that was so is shown by the universal uneasiness which that speech excited. I use the word "uneasiness," rather than "reprehension," because, when a man, even in contravention of ordinary practice, makes a strong political speech, those who agree with his political opinions are very much pleased, whether he is acting in a conventional or an unconventional way. Those, on the other hand, who disagree with him are apt very severely to reprobate his conduct. But on that occasion Lord Robertson was, I believe, almost universally condemned by the sense of this House, as well as of the outside public.
964
Take other cases. I am not taking the cases of the other exceptions to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, referred. I need not deal with the case of Lord Cairns, because it was answered and sufficiently exposed in the reply of the Lord Chancellor. I need not deal with the case of Lord Macnaghten, which has already been dealt with. But I would like to take the inverse aspect of the case, and recall my own experience in connection with some of the Law Lords who have had seats in this House. On many occasions I have spoken to them and asked them why they did not take a greater part in our debates. By that I do not mean our political debates, but our debates generally. And they have invariably told me that the convention that no political remarks or speeches were allowed from them—a convention which they readily accepted—had an almost atrophying effect on their powers of speech in general, and that they became reluctant to address this House.
One case in particular I remember. There used to sit at the corner of that bench a noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker, who was an old friend of mine, with whom I had been associated from boyhood, and, knowing the remarkable intellect that he possessed, I was always urging him to take part in your Lordships' proceedings. He resolutely declined to do so, because he said the force of this convention was not only just in itself, but binding upon him. And the only occasion on which—and that after some persuasion from me—I ever succeeded in inducing that noble and learned Lord to take a very active part in an important debate was on an occasion about two years ago when we were discussing the League of Nations. Late in the evening, just after dinner, he made a most powerful contribution to that discussion. Well, I do not think anybody can say that was political. The subject, perhaps, had political consequences, but he addressed himself to it as a learned lawyer and as an impartial man, and I am certain that nothing would have induced him to depart from that canon of action. I recall many other Law Lords in this House, and one and all they observed, I believe, the rules which were so admirably expressed by Lord Dunedin at an earlier stage this afternoon.
And if the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Finlay, is right in saying that each one of those noble Lords is the custodian

965
of his own conscience, and is at liberty to act in the manner which he thinks fit—which, of course, cannot be disputed; in the last resort that liberty is enjoyed by every man—it is a remarkable thing how few of them have taken advantage of the particular liberty which has been claimed for them by my noble and learned friend.
Has this practice been observed quite as strictly in recent times as it used to be? I think not. I think that many of us have observed a certain—and a growing—deviation from the strict adherence to the old convention to which I have referred. I am a great admirer of my noble and learned friend, Lord Sumner—I do not know whether he is in the House at the moment. I have admired his speaking since we were undergraduates at Oxford together, and occupied the chair of the Union in that place in succession. But I own—I will not pursue the subject further, because he does not seem to be here—that I have listened to some of his speeches, never without admiration but with a growing feeling that he was setting an example inconsistent with the strictest observance of the convention to which I referred and which, wonderful and powerful as are his contributions to debate, was insensibly sapping the basis of our old orders.
Now, I come to the case, if I may, of my noble and learned friend, Lord Carson. He said just now in his speech that I had welcomed him, on the first occasion that I spoke after his appearance here, to your Lordships' House—that is true—and that I had not accompanied my welcome by any reminder of the obligations imposed on him by the judicial capacity—
LORD CARSON: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to say what I did say. I said that on my being made a member of this House and a Law Lord, he had welcomed me and had expressed the hope that I would take part in the debates.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes, and nobody who knows the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord would fail to have extended such a welcome to one whose presence here is a great addition to our debating strength. But on the occasion to which I thought he referred, and which evidently he has not in mind—
LORD CARSON: I had the letter in mind.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: —I did accompany my welcome to him by a reminder that he came here in a judicial capacity, and that reminder, I may recall to the House, he met with a wealth of invective and personal vituperation directed against myself to which I can only say that I bitterly regretted that the rules of the House did not enable me at the moment to make what I think would have been an effective and certainly a very strong reply.
LORD CARSON: I dare say I could have borne it.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: However, the noble and learned Lord came here, and in coming here everybody recognised that he came not only as the powerful exponent of views held by a large number of his countrymen, but as the leader of a cause. He came here with powers of declamation nurtured in a long school of forensic practice, and, viewing the circumstances in which he came here, every one of your Lordships, whether they agreed with him or not, rejoiced, to use the words of the Lord Chancellor, that an exceptional measure of liberty (I do not use the word "toleration" because it might sound patronising) should be left to the noble and learned Lord. I am bound to confess that in my view he has interpreted that liberty with a considerable degree of latitude, importing into our proceedings a declamation and invective and methods of interruption in debate which are somewhat foreign to the ordinary proceedings of your Lordships' House. But even so, often as I have heard the matter discussed, no one here was anxious to take the matter up, everyone felt how deeply the sentiments and convictions of the noble and learned Lord were involved, and I think there was no one of us who did not feel that an exception to the convention, if we believed the latter to exist, existed, or at any rate admitted of some justification, in his case.
Then the noble and learned Lord went down to the country and made this speech at Burton-on-Trent. I have read the speech, and I confess that it filled me with even greater surprise than some of the speeches we have heard from the noble and learned Lord in this House.

967
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack made it quite clear, I think, that a distinction could be drawn, and was drawn by him, between the speeches delivered by the noble and learned Lord in this House and speeches delivered in the country. And he made it clear that that distinction rested upon the fact that the noble and learned Lord speaking here speaks as a Lord of Parliament, and speaking in the country speaks either as a Judge or as a partisan. I do not draw quite the same distinction as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack did between the two performances, holding, as I do, that a Law Lord acts unwisely if he uses the liberty that has been claimed for him in this House. But wrong as I think would be the use of that liberty here, I think the offence is undoubtedly aggravated if a speech of the character to which I am referring is made in the country.
Much has been made of the position of the Lord Chancellor, and I am astonished to hear that anybody attaches any validity to the argument that the Lord Chancellor, as the highest judicial officer in the country, is himself contravening this convention if he makes political speeches either in this House or outside it. As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said, it is an anomaly. But it is an anomaly inherent in our practice, and, I think, entirely justifiable in the circumstances of the case. To what does it actually amount? It means this—that it is thought well and right that in the Cabinet, which is the highest executive and administrative body in the country, you should have present the head of the Judiciary of England. Correspondingly, it is thought to be an advantage to the Judiciary that their highest officer should have a voice, and a powerful voice, in the administration of the Government of the day.
In practice, what does it mean here? It means, of course, that one of the most powerful spokesmen of the Government is always the man who sits upon the Woolsack. In my own recollection, I have heard Lord Herschell, certainly one of the most effective political speakers on behalf of the Government of his day when he was Lord Chancellor; I have heard Lord Loreburn, who concealed a fine power of partisanship under the most judicial demeanour and who impressed your Lordships' House with the latter rather than the former quality almost more than any-
968
body I have heard speak from that part of the House. I have heard other speakers. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, when he was Lord Chancellor, rushed to the assistance of his Government more particularly when the military policy for which he had been responsible was assailed. And we none of us thought that was wrong. We were all of us delighted that a man of his brain and his experience should take charge of those matters. The same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster. This House would be a dismal place if Lord Buckmaster were relegated to judicial subjects. His rising on any question is always a sign of crowded benches, and, if I may speak for myself, of personal delight to me. If these new canons are to be pushed so far that the mouths of these eminent men are to be shut, whether they are in the Government or in Opposition, this House will become an almost impossible place and would be in need of reform, for that if for no other reason. That, however, is trifling with the arguments based on the position of the Chancellor or ex-Chancellor.
My case, which can be put in a sentence, is this—that in spite of what the noble Viscount, Lord Finlay, has said, there does exist this convention. It is an unwritten convention and is not to be found repeated in any written or printed rules. It is a convention sound in itself, based upon long if not immemorial practice, seldom broken, and, when it has been broken, the infringement has been regarded with general disapprobation if not with open censure by your Lordships' House. I hope we shall adhere to that convention. I hope we shall not be forced to translate it into a written or printed formula. If once we begin to do that with our Rules it may carry us very far. This House has subsisted in the main upon the sort of instinctive recognition that we do observe certain rules, not merely of honour but of practice, and if those rules are continuously broken, of course we shall be driven to the alternative which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, himself had in view. We shall be driven to draw up an actual Rule. We shall be driven to lay down that when a noble and learned Lord accepts an appointment he accepts certain obligations in doing so. It would be much better not to find ourselves driven to that point. It would be much better, while recognising the freedom of independent action which was claimed for

969
the learned Lords by Lord Finlay, to urge upon them in future to exercise that liberty in a manner which is consonant with what I bel1we the great majority of the House will regard as a sound, just as it is a very long, tradition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say one word lest the opinion should get abroad that your Lordships who are not lawyers agree with the noble Marquess in the remarks that he made just before resuming his seat. I do not regard this matter from the purely legal point of view, and upon that side of the question I think too much has been said already in the debate that has taken place. I am thinking of your Lordships' House in transacting the great legislative work which is an obligation upon you, and I say that the contributions of the noble and learned Lords of Appeal, like the contributions of Lord Chancellors and ex-Lord Chancellors, are of the greatest value to the House.
I would like, if I may, to take an instance. We have been engaged lately in a very controversial measure in regard to Ireland. How were the two Parties who were in controversy drawn up? There was on the one side His Majesty's Government, assisted, if I may say so, on this occasion more or less by the Liberal Party, and there was on the other side a remnant of the remains of the great Unionist Party. It was our business, as far as we could and to the extent of our abilities, to lay before your Lordships certain reasons why we thought provisions in that Bill required amendment. Let us suppose that the rule which the noble Marquess the Leader of the house and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack have sought to lay down had prevailed. What would have been the result? In arguing the case, on one side there would have been arrayed not only the great lay talent I see in front of me, but an immense legal talent. There would have been the Lord Chancellor, a host in himself, a valiant man, not very impartial in our debates whatever his impartiality may be elsewhere. Then there would have been Lord Buckmaster, Lord Haldane, and all those noble and learned Lords to argue the legal points. I regret to say that because of his country's call, my noble and learned friend, Lord Finlay, was elsewhere.
There would have been nobody in your Lordships' House to put the necessary
970
legal points on behalf of those who criticised the Irish Free State Bill if the rule of the noble Marquess and of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack had prevailed. That would have been a distinct loss to the debates of your Lordships' House. The issues would not have been properly presented to the House. The legal argument would all have been on one side. I do not mean to say that your Lordships are entirely governed by legal argument. I am glad to say that you are good enough, occasionally, to listen to lay Peers as well as to learned Lords. But we need not go further than that instance to prove that it is a good and salutary rule that the legal talent in your Lordships' House should place itself at the service of this House. I am not criticising for one moment my noble and learned friend of a very long date, Lord Dunedin, who does what he thinks right. Personally, I am exceedingly sorry that he does not take a greater part in the debates in this House. I am sure that it would have been for the benefit of the House if he had done so.
Speaking as a lay Peer, I should regret more than I can say if learned Lords did not take their proper share in the debates in this House. They are Peers; they are equals in all respects. It is the very nature of the House of Lords that we are all equals. We must not make these distinctions. We must not say that one noble Lord is to take part in debate on one class of subject, and that another Lord shall take part in debate on another class of subject. Suppose that were to apply to the Bishops, for example. Does any one suggest that the right rev. Prelates are only to talk about ecclesiastical matters? Were that so we should lose a very great deal that we derive from the contributions that are made to our debates from time to time by the most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury. I do not believe that the suggestion made by the noble Marquess is really in accordance with the interests of the country and of your Lordships' House.

Let me say one word with regard to this matter of impartiality. It is said absolutely truly that all noble and learned Lords in the House are impartial when they sit judicially, but it is said further that people outside may suspect them of partiality, or of not being impartial. Let us consider the matter. Suppose I were an ignorant suitor who did not know the

971
great standard of impartiality which really prevails, and I had to consider which was more likely to be impartial, let us say the Lord Chancellor or Lord Sumner. How would the ordinary average man approach the subject? He would say: "Here is Lord Sumner, who has been engaged in the law all his life, who never was a member of the House of Commons, who never took part in Party politics until he became a Lord of Appeal, whose mind has been saturated with the law all his life, and with the impartial character which belongs to the law." Then he looks at the Lord Chancellor. He would find a most distinguished man—one of the most distinguished men in your Lordships' House. He has been a member of the other House of Parliament, and I am sure he will not mind my saying that he was in that House an extreme and most formidable partisan. He fought like a man there until he was promoted to the Woolsack. He has not ceased to be a partisan now. He takes part not merely in the debates in your Lordships' House, but is to be seen all over the country speaking, and—if I may use such an expression in your Lordships' House, with respect to a Lord Chancellor—even wire-pulling.
What would the outsider think when he compared my noble and learned friend, Lord Sumner, with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack? Which of the two would he be likely to expect to be the more impartial when he came before him as a suitor, having those two records to guide him? I do not think there can be any doubt as to the answer. Of course he would be wrong. The Lord Chancellor, I am quite sure, is absolutely impartial when he sits upon the Woolsack. Still, having regard to all these circumstances, when I hear the Lord Chancellor solemnly reprove Lord Sumner, I confess it does make me feel that it is a pity the Lord Chancellor has not a more impartial record before he takes upon himself to criticise the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner.

A great deal has been said in your Lordships' House about tradition. I remember Lord Cairns, I remember Lord Selborne, I remember Lord Herschell, and though they were not more able than the Lord Chancellor, I must say that if they were alive to-day they would be surprised to see the sort of way in which a modern Lord Chancellor carries out the traditions of his office.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Marquess be a little more specific in that exposure?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not in the least derogatory to the noble and learned Lord.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It sounded to me most derogatory.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In that case I apologise. He has been an extreme partisan, and the Lord Chancellors of the past did not take much part in Party polities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Three days in close debate were occupied in discussing whether Lord Cairns or Mr. Disraeli should lead the Unionist Party. I could give him half a dozen more cases. The noble Marquess should refresh his memory of those familiar cases.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There was no such discussion when Lord Cairns was Lord Chancellor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He was an ex-Lord Chancellor.
TIIE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was not speaking of ex-Lord Chancellors. I was speaking of Lord Chancellors, and I was absolutely correct in what I said. Upon the point of ex-Lord Chancellors I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that we should lose enormously if we lost the assistance and contribution to our debates of the two noble and learned Lords who sit on this bench. That is perfectly true, but I am quite sure that you would not be able to satisfy any lay audience that it is right and proper to allow the Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, and Lord Buck-master and Lord Loreburn, to take part in Party politics in your Lordships' House or upon the platform, while noble and learned Lords, who happen to be Lords of Appeal, are not to be allowed to do so. You would not be able to satisfy any lay audience that in one case the impartiality of your Lordships' House as a Judicial Court is not infringed, and that in the other case it is infringed. It is contrary to common sense.
If it should be thought better, as it may be, to separate the Judicial members of

973
your Lordships' House altogether from politics, then there would have to be a general Rule that no ex-Lord Chancellor should be allowed to take part in Party politics any more than any other Law Lord. It would be a profound mistake; but I am certain you would not be able to satisfy any ordinary body of laymen, or the public outside, that there is any real validity in the distinction between the two cases. I do not speak for a moment of salary; in this connection the question of salary is beneath contempt. The great point is that we know and believe that men of their distinction, whether they are Lord Chancellors or Law Lords, are above any possible suspicion that when they sit as Judges they are anything but impartial. I agree that there is a dignity which attaches to their office which they themselves will bear in mind, but I hope that the legal members of your Lordships' House will contribute, with all other Peers, to the counsels and decisions of your Lordships' House and add to the debates by which those decisions are reached.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and to be printed.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in the name of the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, the Leader of the House.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for this day's sitting in order to take the said Bill through all its stages.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed.

CROFT'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).
MORTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

PEACE TREATIES.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER had given notice to call attention to the provisions of the Peace Treaties, and to move to resolve, "That the terms of the Treaties appropriating the private property of enemy-subjects shall not apply to sums of £5,000 or less where the owner is either born of British parents or had been resident in this country continuously for twenty-five years before 4th August, 1914."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the wholly unexpected introduction of the important debate which has just taken place puts me in a position of some difficulty. The Motion which stands in my name on the Paper is one that I regard, and I hope your Lordships will regard, as one of very great importance and one that certainly needs the most careful examination and attention. With the utmost anxiety to avoid fatiguing your Lordships with a long speech—I hope I shall not be claining too much for myself when I say that I always try not to fatigue your Lordships—I do not think it would be possible for me to compress what I have to say into a shorter compass than three-quarters of an hour or an hour, because there is a great deal of matter that must be gone into.
Two or three noble Lords, quite unsolicited, have expressed to me their anxiety to speak on this matter, and if that be so it would be clearly impossible for any adequate discussion to take place upon this Motion to-night. I know your Lordships have been summoned here this afternoon in the hope and expectation that this matter would be discussed, but if your Lordships are in agreement with me that it would not give to the matter that consideration which it deserves, I would ask permission to postpone it until Thursday of next week, when I hope there will be a better opportunity of discussing it.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD GORELL): My Lords, I am entirely in your Lordships' hands. I quite realise that there has intervened a some-what long discussion on an important matter, and if it is the general feeling of the House I have no objection to the course which the noble and learned Lord proposes to take.
Motion postponed until Thursday, April 6.

OLD NEWTON CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL.
LORD GISBOROUGH LORD GISBOROUGH rose to move, That the Draft Order Amending Final Order, No. 8, made under Section 11 (8) of the Education Act, 1902, which was presented to this House on the 7th February last, be not proceeded with.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to agree to this Motion I am asking only for an ordinary act of justice. The Order refers to a previous Order issued on August 22, 1903, by the Board of Education, which is entirely in accord with the trust deed under which the present incumbent and his predecessors have held that office. The extract from the trust deed to which I refer is as follows:
"It is hereby declared that such School and the premises and the funds and endowments thereof shall be controlled and managed in manner following, that is to say, the Vicar and Churchwardens for the time being of the said Parish of Old Newton shall have the superintendence of the religious and moral instruction of all the Scholars attending such School, and may use or direct the said premises to be used for the purpose of a Sunday School, under their exclusive control and management, and in all other respects the control and management of such School and premises, and of the funds and endowments thereof, and the selection, appointment and dismissal of the Schoolmaster and Schoolmistress and their assistants shall be vested in and exercised by the Vicar and Churchwardens for the time being of the said Parish of Old Newton."
In the Order of August 22, 1903, the provisions of that trust were fully complied with.
Since then, however, an amending Order has been brought forward and is now laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House, and your Lordships are asked to accept it. Under this amending Order the whole of the conditions of the original trust are swept away, and the conditions laid down in that trust are withheld. The President of the Board of Education gives as the only reason for this very unjust action that he "cannot get the vicar to observe the trust." That submission is absolutely without foundation; there is not a word of truth in it. The vicar has fulfilled the conditions of the trust in every respect. Nor has Mr. Fisher in the other place given any facts to substantiate the statement which he makes.
He goes on to say of the vicar:—
"He will not summons the vestry in accordance with the law."
That is absolutely contrary to the facts. The vicar has summoned the vestry in
976
accordance with the law, and every provision of the law has been complied with. The only justification for that statement on Mr. Fisher's part is that during the war the parish in question being in one of the proscribed areas where meetings were not allowed to be held at night owing to the frequent attacks from German aeroplanes and other ships of war, it was illegal to hold vestry meetings in the evening, and, as the whole of the working classes would have been disfranchised had they been held in the middle of the day, naturally they were not held. But the moment the war was over a meeting was held and an election made according to law. Mr. Fisher further says:—
"The Board of Education have for two years been pressing the vicar to adopt this course but he has refused to do so. He has been openly contumacious."
That statement is entirely without foundation. They have not been pressing him for two years—the outside period that could be claimed would be fourteen months—and, as I have pointed out, the greater part of that time was during the war, when the meetings were proscribed, or immediately afterwards, when the vicar was himself suffering from a serious breakdown in his health. I therefore venture to say that every one of the reasons given by Mr. Fisher for the substitution of this amending Order for the original one falls to the ground.
More than that, here is a statement by Mr. Fisher, dated June 6, in which he admits that a vestry meeting was convened and a manager selected. Where then is there any trace of contumacy? Mr. Fisher first of all says that there was contumacy because the vicar would not call these meetings. Then, when the meeting is called and the whole thing carried out according to law, those meetings are going to be challenged. He cannot have it both ways. There was no contumacy, because the meeting was called, as he admits himself, but, having been called, it is to be challenged, although it is the very thing he has been demanding from the vicar.
I venture to say that this is only one of a series of pin pricks experienced by this particular vicar, which look extremely like the policy which has been carried on all over the country—that where clergy are of an evangelical line of thought and are teaching doctrines from the evangelical side, they must be made so uncom-

977
fortable that they can be got rid of and extreme ritualists put in their place. No other excuse can possibly be given to justify the action taken in this case. But apart from that, and as an act of justice, I ask your Lordships to say that the terms of this trust deed shall not be set aside without any just cause or reason. That would be the effect of this amending Order if it is allowed to pass, and we ask, that it shall not be allowed to pass, and that the original Order, which complies with the trust deed, and which the vicar himself has accepted and has acted upon, shall remain, in order to maintain the peace and goodwill which have existed, together with the present efficiency of the schools, against which no charges have been brought, so far as we are able to gather, and to avoid breaking up the harmony of that parish. That harmony will undoubtedly be destroyed if this Order is allowed to pass, and the school is taken away from the hands of the vicar—who has been there over thirty years and knows every inhabitant of the parish—and placed in the hands and practically under the entire control of the Archdeacon, who lives between twenty and thirty miles away and knows nothing of the special requirements of the parish or its inhabitants.
Moved, That the Draft Order Amending Final Order, No. 8, made under Section 11 (8) of the Education Act, 1902, which was presented to this House on the 7th February last, be not proceeded with.—(Lord Gisborough.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, my noble friend has not, I fancy, read the correspondence, extending over thirty years, about this school. It is a very old story. It is not, as he indicates to your Lordships, a mere dispute that has arisen about some small case connected with the election of vestrymen. It is a case of very old standing, constant, incessant bitterness and dispute between this clergyman and a large section of his parishioners. This is only the culmination of a prolonged trouble which has at length forced the Board of Education to intervene. In the first place it is quite unfair—I have satisfied myself of this—to say that this is a policy of pin-pricks towards this individual clergyman. It is equally unjust to say that there is anything to do with High Church or Low Church in the matter. That is importing prejudice which does not help the vicar, which does not heal the schisms in the parish con-
978
netted with this school, and which, I assure my noble friend, is entirely unfounded.
I will tell your Lordships in a very few words what has happened. In the first place, referring to the noble Lord's words: "It is one of a series of pin-pricks," I am informed that this is an unique case, that it has never happened before, and that the Order which the Board of Education is now issuing is one which Parliament has hitherto never been asked to confirm. In other words, the circumstances that have produced this Order are unparalleled. The Order which is to be changed was made in 1903, after a full public inquiry. Lord Gisborough tells us that its provisions have been fully complied with. That is not so; it is because the conditions have not been complied with, because the school has not been well-managed, because the dispute has been incessant and a corroding influence on the whole of this district, that the Board of Education has been driven to intervene.
The vicar has refused, or, let me say, has failed, to implement the terms of the original order, which compel him to summon a vestry meeting in order to elect one of the managers for this elementary school. Lord Gisborough says that owing to aeroplane attacks it was impossible for a vestry meeting to be held in this County of Suffolk; that for years it was impossible to hold a vestry meeting because of aeroplane attacks, which prevented the school from being lighted. That excuse, if he will allow me to say so, is really a little too thin.
LORD GISBOROUGH: I did not say "being lighted," but I said that the Act of Parliament had prohibited meetings being held at night in that area.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Am I to assume that no statutory meetings could be held along the prohibited areas of the Suffolk coast, or anywhere else, because artificial light was impossible? That argument cannot be pressed. It cannot be pressed for this reason, that the controversy which moved the Board of Education to action occurred after the war had ended. Let me give your Lordships particulars. In 1920 bitter complaints arrived from the local education authority about this school. On November 25, 1920, the Board of Education invited this vicar to hold a vestry meeting to elect

979
a representative, whose vacancy had existed for six years. For six months the Board of Education got no answer. They wrote three times, and their letters were disregarded. By April, 1921, they succeeded in getting an answer from this gentleman, and it was a flat refusal to summon a meeting of the vestry to elect the representative that the vestry was entitled to nominate. Then my noble friend says that immediately after the war the meeting was held. Again my noble friend is misinformed.
LORD GISBOROUGH: Again my noble friend misrepresents me. I said that after the war the vicar suffered a very serious illness, and that period elapsed before anything could be done.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I understood him to say that immediately after the war the meeting was called. In point of fact the vicar called the vestry meeting only after the Board of Education had intervened owing to his contumacy. That was quite an ex post facto repentance which could not influence the authority. Meanwhile, the local education authority had applied to the Board for an amending Order. The Board of Education agreed, the draft was approved by the local education authority, and the amended Order was issued in, I think, July, 1921. That amending Order ensured that every member of the board of management should be a member of the Church of England, and so, to that extent, the denominational character of the school was rather increased than reduced. When the scheme was public property, the vicar did represent his case to the Board of Education, and then, as Lord Gisborough said, he held an election in January of this year, and claims that upon that account it is unnecessary to proceed with this scheme.
I must beg your Lordships to accept my word, which is based upon very careful consideration of the correspondence, that this amended scheme gives some hope to this parish of peace in its educational matters. For thirty years dispute has followed dispute, row has accumulated on shindy, and the local education authority, which is ultimately responsible, has pressed the Department to take strong lines and bring this weary business to an end. I really do not think I need give your Lordships the melancholy record of these
980
perpetual squabbles, but there is the fact that the managers have been fined for not obeying orders, and that having defied the orders contumaciously they have been ordered to pay daily fines until the orders of the Bench have been complied with. So far from breaking up the peace of the parish, I think the parish now has at last a prospect of repose. As the local education authority supports the scheme, as also does the local Member of Parliament, and as the House of Commons has unanimously done so, I hope your Lordships will not agree, in the special circumstances I have indicated, to reverse the decision already reached in the other House, but will, I trust, accept it.
On Question, Motion negatived.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order); privilege Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order); privilege Amendments made; Bill passed; and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The House will resume shortly for a Royal Commission, and before that may I say that to my great regret I am afraid your Lordships will have to be invited to sit on Friday next, because it seems very improbable that the House of Commons will be able to return the Amendments to the Irish Bill before that morning. I can give your Lordships more precise information to-morrow, but it looks inevitable that you will have to be invited to sit on Friday.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—

Consolidated Fund (No. 2).

Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation.

Stirling Corporation (Water, etc.) Order Confirmation.

Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order.

House adjourned at seven o'clock.

CLARE COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE (BLYTHE'S BENEFACTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Judges' Report received: Bill presented, and read 1ª.
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 Raglan and Lord Muir Mackenzie be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Marquess of Bath and Viscount Falmouth, and Lord Muir Mackenzie to be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
STRETFORD AND DISTRICT GAS BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (DEWSBURY ENDOWED SCHOOLS FOUNDATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
MAGUIRE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  BABINGTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the cases: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Third Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.