Sitting of 9 May 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Rugby School Bill [Lords].

Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords].

Great Northern Railway Bill [Lords].

Bolton Corporation Bill [Lords].

Cambridge Corporation Bill [Lords]

Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Water) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading
1974
thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Bristol Tramways Bill.
Nottingham Corporation (Trent Navigation) Bill [Lords],
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Exeter Corporation Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

MELVILLE TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1S99, relating to the Melville Trust." presented by Mr. MUNRO; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 6) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Ashton-in-Makerfield, Abergavenny, Gravesend, Keighley, and Swansea," presented by Sir ALFRED MOND; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    PURE COTTON.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a Bill has been introduced into the Legislative Assembly for safeguarding pure cotton; and, if so, what stage it has reached?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly on the 8th

    1975
    March. No further progress had been made up to the date of the latest reports of the Assembly received here.

    MACHINERY (TENDERS).
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if it is the intention of the India Office, or those responsible, to seek tenders from Germany and other continental countries for the supply of their requirements in road rollers and other classes of machinery?
    Earl WINTERTON: The High Commissioner for India is responsible for making purchases of stores for the Government of India. The instructions issued for his guidance require purchases to be made in the most favourable market on a commercial basis. Important requirements are, as a rule, advertised, and tenders from Germany and other continental countries are considered on their merits, together with tenders from British, Dominion and American sources of supply.

    SALT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether open indenting for salt is the rule throughout India; and whether, seeing that such indenting has led in Rajputana to unfortunate profiteering, the system under which district officers nominate trustworthy agents for their districts, who are allowed to indent on condition that they sell wholesale at a fixed rate, can be made of general application?
    Earl WINTERTON: The system of open indenting is generally followed in India, but in some localities other systems are followed. My hon. Friend's suggestion will be communicated to the Government of India.

    PRIMARY EDUCATION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Madras Government has passed an Act authorising local bodies to make primary education compulsory; and, if so, whether similar action has been taken by any other provincial legislature?
    Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir. Six other provinces have passed similar Acts. But the conditions under which the local authorities may introduce compulsory
    1976
    education, if by a two-thirds majority they desire to do so, entail adequate provision in each case for finance, school accommodation, and the training of teachers.
    Dr. MURRAY: Can the Noble Lord arrange for some of these enlightened statesmen to be sent to Nottingham, where, apparently, there are those who do not believe in any education?

    OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any decision has yet been reached as to the permanent increase in the pensions of retired Indian officers who served in the recent War, in accordance with the promise made by the Indian Government?
    Earl WINTERTON: An Army Instruction was issued by the Government of India, dated 15th March last, notifying that the revised rates of pension sanctioned in 1920 for Indian officers and non-commissioned officers ranking as Havildar would be applicable to pensioners who had rendered satisfactory paid military service during the War, the re-assessed rate to be drawn from 1st April, 1919, or from date of release from re-employed service, whichever is later.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the Noble Lord dealing only with native troops? The class to which my question referred are the European officers who served with the native Army.
    Earl WINTERTON: I will get that information for my hon. and gallant Friend. I was under the impression that the question referred to Indian officers.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the Noble Lord aware that the promise of increased pensions was made directly after the War, and will he take steps with a view of getting an early settlement?
    Earl WINTERTON: I will look into the whole matter and let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

    DEVELOPMENT LOANS (BRITISH CONTRACTS).
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if consideration is being given to the fact that British manufacturers are unable to compete with

    1977
    German and other Continental firms owing to the collapsed exchanges; and can any steps be taken to ensure that all moneys loaned to the Indian Government for the development of the country be spent with English firms, to enable them to reduce the amount of unemployment that exists to-day?
    Earl WINTERTON: When the East India Loans Bill was recently before the House, I fully explained the policy to be followed in this matter and the reasons for its adoption. I am glad to say that the facts do not bear out the assumption in the first part of the question. As I previously stated, I can give no undertaking that all orders for supplies for Indian railways bought out of the proceeds of sterling loans will be placed in the United Kingdom, but I confidently hope that, as in the past, British manufacturers will be able to secure the great bulk of the orders.

    SEDITION (REPRESSION).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state what powers remain with the Government of India now that the Press Act Repeal Bill has been passed by the Indian Legislature to repress the dissemination of seditious matter in India and the vilification of Government servants, both British and Indian; whether these powers are considered sufficient; and, if not, what steps are to be taken in the matter?
    Earl WINTERTON: It is difficult to explain so complicated a matter as the exact effect of the repealing Act by means of an answer to a question. With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission I will send him a copy of the Act, which will answer the first part of his question. It is hoped that the powers that remain will prove sufficient. If they do not, it will of course be necessary to consider further action.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: When you are able to put your opponents into gaol, are any further powers necessary?

    SURPLUS OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the serious discontent that has been created in cones-
    1978
    quence of the delay that has been incurred in the publication of the terms under which the surplus officers of the Indian Army are to be compulsorily retired; and whether he can now state what these terms are, so that the officers who are to be compelled to take up a new career may be able to make their fresh start in life with as little delay as possible?
    Earl WINTERTON: The delay, which no one regrets more than the Secretary of State in Council and the Government of India, is due to the fact that when the Indian scheme was ready for application a similar problem arose in regard to the British Army and the Navy. It was decided that the compensation terms for all three Services must be considered comprehensively, and the results of that consideration are now awaiting final confirmation.
    Sir C. YATE: Can the Noble Lord say when he will be able to make a statement on the subject?
    Earl WINTERTON: I hope very shortly indeed; possibly in the course of next-week or so.
    Sir C. YATE: This week?
    Earl WINTERTON: This week or next week.

    RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVES.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will, when apportioning orders for locomotives for the Indian state railways, take into consideration the products of the State factory at Woolwich which has been reconstructed at enormous expense for the manufacture of locomotives, and possesses a number finished and ready for delivery?
    Earl WINTERTON: The suggestion will be brought to the attention of the High Commissioner for India and of the railway companies which deal with the requirements of the State-managed and of the company-managed State railways respectively.
    Mr. MILLS: Will special consideration be given to the fact that the Prime Minister assured a deputation that the Secretary of State for India would be consulted to see whether it was possible

    1979
    to take the locomotives under construction at Woolwich?
    Earl W1NTERT0N: Yes, Sir. The procedure is, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, that under the present system the High Commissioner is the agent for the Government of India in making these purchases.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: What is the gauge of the Indian railways, and what the gauge of these locomotives?
    Earl WINTERTON: I was looking into that question only this morning. I do not think the locomotives will be suitable for the Indian railways, but I do not yet know what Woolwich has available.

  IRELAND.

    REBEL OFFICERS.
    Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for War if he has advised His Majesty to deprive officers of honorary rank and decoration for gallant service who have joined the rebel army in Ireland and taken up arms against the forces of the Crown?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I have no record that any such cases have been reported to the War Office.
    Colonel BURN: If I give instances, will my hon. and gallant Friend take up the matter with a view to seeing that the officers concerned are deprived of their honours?
    Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, certainly.
    Captain GEE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that officers in receipt of retired pay who are fighting in the rebel army may be dealt with in a similar way?
    Sir R. SANDERS: If I get specific instances, I will have them looked into, most certainly.

    SOUTH IRELAND (RECONQUEST).
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps, if any, the Government are taking, or are prepared to take, in order to reconquer Southern Ireland; and what force would be available for this purpose?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): No, Sir, I have no statement to make on such a subject.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend not to move in the matter until compelled by an indignant public opinion?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving his own opinions.

    LOYALISTS (PROTECTION).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can inform the House as to the present position in Southern Ireland; whether the Government are satisfied that adequate protection is being provided for ex-service men, Protestant farmers, and other loyalists in that area; and whether there are any isolated detachments of British troops who are in danger of capture or outrage?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The responsibility for maintenance of law and order in Ireland outside the Northern area has, with the approval of Parliament, now been transferred to the Provisional Government, who are doing their best in exceedingly difficult circumstances to afford protection against outrage to all classes. As the House is aware, the authority of the Provisional Government has been challenged in some parts of the area within their jurisdiction; but the grave situation resulting from that challenge could only, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, be aggravated by any interference or action on their part. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Are we to understand that the British Government has abandoned the loyalists in Southern Ireland to their fate, except in so far as they make representations to the Provisional Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is really criticising the Act now on the Statute Book.

    DUBLIN CASTLE (OFFICIALS).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any of the former Government Departments in Dublin Castle have been wound up; if so, which of them; how many persons are now

    1981
    in employment in the former Government Departments and offices in Dublin Castle; and if there, has been any reduction of the numbers?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: With the exception of the Chief Secretary's Office and the Office of the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, all the former Departments in Dublin Castle have now been taken over by the Provisional Government. The staff of the former office now consists of two British officials, who are engaged on matters arising out of the transfer of services to the Provisional Government and on matters connected with the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Colonel GRETTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very large number of employés in Dublin Castle and can he assure the House that with the exception of those mentioned, these are now struck off the pay list of this country?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I thought my answer was perfectly clear. There is a large number of employés, partly employés of the Provisional Government and partly policemen themselves who are engaged in disbanding the force, and, as far as British officials are concerned, there are two.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When does the right hon. Gentleman himself expect to lay down the burden of his office?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: At the earliest possible moment.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the two officials?

    FINANCE.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the reductions and alterations in taxation that may be included in the forthcoming Finance Bill will apply automatically to that portion of Ireland known as the Irish Free State; and, if not, what arrangement he has made with the Minister in charge of Irish finance to meet the difficulties that will arise?
    Sir R. HORNE: As matters stand at present, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and I am in communication with the Finance
    1982
    Minister of the Provisional Government on the matter.

    PAPER MONEY.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether paper money now in circulation in Ireland or which may be issued on behalf of or by an Irish bank, has behind it the same guarantee as paper money issued by the Bank of England; and, if not, will he say what value is possessed by a £1 note of the Bank of Ireland for purposes of legal tender in Great Britain?
    Sir R. HORNE: Irish bank notes are not legal tender in Great Britain, and have never been. The Irish note issues are private issues, and their position is in no way altered by the changed constitutional position.

    KIDNAPPING (BRITISH NAVY).
    Mr. PENNEFATHER(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any men of the British Navy were kidnapped in Ireland on Sunday night or yesterday morning; and, if so, how many; and what action the Admiralty propose to take?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I have no information that any men of the British Navy have been kidnapped in Ireland.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer cover the case of pensioners and coastgaurds who are ex-naval men?
    Mr. AMERY: I made inquiries from the Admiral at Queenstown upon receipt of the question as to whether any men of the British Navy had been kidnapped, and he said they had no information. If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a further question I will inquire into that point.
    Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: May I ask whether the Admiral at Queenstown is in a position to know?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his position in the House for the purpose of refuting statements of those Members of the House who put these malevolent question and spread false information, or is it his idea that

    1983
    it all depends in whose interests the information is given?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for me. I asked the hon. Member, and he assured me that he had adequate information, whether correct or not, upon which to base this question, and the responsibility is mine.
    Mr. DEVLIN: In view of certain rulings which you, Mr. Speaker, have given in the House in regard to questions about Ireland, may I ask whether there is any power resting with you or with the Government to prevent these continuous misrepresentations from being given publicity in the House of Commons? Denials come from Ministers, and there is no repudiation of these lies——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is using quite unnecessary adjectives. I take full responsibility for the question, and I think it is quite a proper one, as, if correct, it affected naval men in the employ of this House.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is it permissible for hon. Members of this House to bring charges of misrepresentation and lies and things of that kind against another hon. Member who simply asks a question based upon a telegram which he has received to the effect that a certain incident has taken place? Would not that prevent every Member of this House from asking any question based upon information which he has received?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have already said that I think the hon. Member was justified in his question. That was why I accepted it in the special form of a Private Notice question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Why should he be called a liar?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that Irishmen, from whatever part of Ireland they come, are apt to put superlatives into their speech.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: May I ask your ruling on this very definite question: Is it in order for a Member of this House to attribute malevolent, false and malicious motives in putting a question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Any attribution of motives is against the rules of the House,
    1984
    and I hope that the hon. and learned Member will support me in preventing it.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    COAST BATTERY MEN (MEDAL).
    Mr. J. JONESasked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that coast battery men during the war are entitled to the war medal, whilst men who were mobilised in 1914 and guarded the railways and afterwards did duty on the coast are not entitled, he will explain this discrimination?
    Sir R. SANDERS: The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. The medal is not given to all coast battery men, but only to those who were actually engaged with hostile vessels. The performance of general military duty on the coast, whether in a battery or elsewhere, does not entitle a man to the medal.

    PALESTINE (BRITISH GARRISON.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give particulars of the British troops now in Palestine and the periods for which they have been stationed there; and if he will state whether they are quartered in barracks or under canvas?
    Sir R. SANDERS: The British Army Garrison in Palestine consists at present, besides ancillary services, of the following units, which arrived in the country at various dates in 1920 and 1921:

    The Royal Scots Greys (2nd Dragoons).

    13th Pack Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery.

    2nd Battalion, Prince of Wales' Volunteers (South Lancashire).

    20th Army Troops Company, Royal Engineers.

    4th Armoured Car Company.

    Nearly the whole of these troops are accommodated in huts and the remainder are under canvas.
    Sir F. HALL: What is the object of these men being there? What have they to do?
    Sir R. SANDERS: That is a big question of policy.
    Sir F. HALL: What is the policy of the Government with regard to Palestine?
    Sir R. SANDERS: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    JAMAICA.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from Jamaica any complaints as to the action of the present Governor; and, in view of the statements in the Press, is any inquiry taking place as to the strained situation in that Colony, and the cause thereof?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): My right hon. Friend has seen the statements referred to in the newspapers. Various matters arousing local discussion and controversy were brought to my notice when I was in Jamaica, and these are dealt with in the report of my visit to the West Indies, which I hope to lay upon the Table of the House at an early date. I may, however, say at once, that while in the Colony I saw and heard nothing which would justify the description, of the situation then prevailing as strained.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are these strained relations due to any extent to the policy of the Governor in settling people upon the land in Jamaica?
    Mr. WOOD: I should hesitate to go as far as that. It is no doubt true that land settlement in Jamaica, as elsewhere, has been a matter of controversy.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has this matter been referred to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who looks after questions of Empire land settlement?
    Mr. HURD: Seeing how many of these questions affecting the West Indies are now held up in view of the hon. Gentleman's report, will he press upon the Colonial Secretary the desirability of placing the report before the public as soon as possible?
    Mr. WOOD: Yes, I am very glad to say that the report has been through the hands of my right hon. Friend and I expect to send it out to the Governors one day this week, whichever day the mail goes. As soon as we have heard that it has reached them it will be placed before this House.

    SIERRA LEONE (CRIMINAL COURTS).
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether there is a Court of Appeal for the hearing of civil cases in Sierra Leone, and no Court of Appeal in criminal cases; whether a person convicted on the findings of a judge alone has no right of appeal;
    (2) whether, by an ordinance in force in the Colony of Sierra Leone, the Attorney-General, without stating any reason, has the right to demand that a person charged with an offence be tried by the aid of assessors instead of by jury; and whether, in such cases, the unanimous opinion of the assessors is binding on the Court or is the sole right of decision vested in the judge alone?
    Mr. WOOD: There is a Court of Appeal for civil cases, but none for criminal cases in Sierra Leone—the Attorney-General may, except in capital cases, demand that a person shall be tried by a judge with assessors instead of with a jury; the opinion of the assessors is not binding on the judge; it follows that a person may be convicted on other than capital charges, on the findings of a judge without having a right to appeal. It is always open to a person so convicted to petition the Governor for pardon or remission of sentence.

    IRAQ (OIL).
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any oil fields have yet been discovered in the mandated territories of Iraq; whether exploration is in progress; what private company or companies are carrying out this work; whether drilling has commenced and, if so, with what results; whether any royalties on oil will be paid to the native government of Iraq; and what steps are being taken to see that the natives of the country benefit from any exploitation of their oil lands, and that in the granting of licences to win oil there is no special preference given to favoured companies or individuals?
    Mr. WOOD: There are signs of oil in various parts of Iraq, but how far the deposits are worth working or not is not yet known. No exploration work or

    1987
    drilling is being carried out in any part of Iraq, except in the narrow strip of territory transferred from Persia to Turkey under the Turco-Persian Frontier Protocol of 17th November, 1913, which is covered by the concession granted to Mr. D'Arcy in 1901 by the Persian Government, and which the Turkish Government agreed to recognise in the Protocol referred to. The Iraq Government as the inheritor of the rights of the Turkish Government will receive a royalty of 16 per cent. of the net profits on any oil which may be obtained in that territory. The form of government which has been set up in Iraq affords ample guarantee of the rights of the natives of the country in the matter of concessions as in other respects, while the rights of other nations are safeguarded by Article 11 of the Draft Mandate. There is no reason to fear that special preference will be shown to any particular company or individuals.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How does it come about that the Prime Minister in this House two years ago stated that there were considerable oil deposits in Iraq, and held that out as a reason for the vast expenditure?
    Mr. WOOD: I am very glad to find I am in entire agreement with my right hon. Friend. As I have said, there are signs of oil in various parts of Iraq.
    Mr. SWAN: In the event of this oil being exploited by us, has consideration been given to the extent of the standing army which will be necessary, or as to what the cost will be?

    PUBLIC VEHICLES, LONDON (INSPECTION).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inspectors are employed at Scotland Yard and on the streets, respectively, in the inspection of public service vehicles; what qualifications are insisted upon as a condition of appointment; and upon what Vote they are shown?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The inspecting staff has a strength of 45 officers, of whom four are attached to headquarters and 41 outside. They are not, of course, all of inspector's rank.
    1988
    All men appointed to the inspecting staff are selected by reason of their former experience of engineering matters, and no man is appointed to the higher grades unless he possesses a certificate of competency in motor-car engineering and mechanics. They form part of the Metropolitan Police, and the cost is borne by the Metropolitan Police Fund, the Exchequer contribution to which is contained in the Police Vote.

    ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFIC.
    Colonel BURNasked the Home Secretary if the Government will support legislation introduced to authorise flogging and imprisonment without the option of a fine in the case of individuals convicted of carrying on the illicit drug traffic in this country, and deportation, in addition, if the offender is an alien?
    Mr. SHORTT: The question of taking further powers and strengthening the law is under consideration. The power to deport already exists, and is used whenever possible.
    Colonel BURN: Is it possible to inflict the punishment of flogging on aliens who commit this crime?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir, not under the present law.
    Colonel BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is put into the law?
    Mr. SHORTT: It is a matter of considerable difficulty. It is not so simple as my hon. Friend seems to think.
    Colonel BURN: These aliens are frightened by nothing else. If you flog them, you will stop them from carrying on this traffic.
    Mr. L. LYLEasked the Home Secretary whether, in the opinion of the police authorities, the law under which no conviction can take place under the Dangerous Drugs Act unless a forbidden drug is actually found on the person of the arrested man or woman requires alteration; and whether he proposes, in that case, to ask the House for the extra powers?
    Mr. SHORTT: So far as I am aware, there is no such law. Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me and let me know what he has in mind.

    NATIONALITY LAW.
    Mr. HOPKINSasked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to state the position of the negotiations with the Dominions on the Amendments to the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, with regard to the grandsons born abroad of British parents; and when an amending Bill will be introduced?
    Mr. SHORTT: The negotiations are, as I stated last week, complete and immediate steps are being taken with a view to the introduction of the Bill.

    TAXI-CAB FARES.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Home Secretary if he is now able to hold out any hope of a reduction in taxi-cab fares; is he aware that this step is desired by the majority of the drivers themselves; and what is the reason for postponement of the official permission?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have no information that a reduction is desired by the majority of drivers, but any representation they may make to me will receive my immediate consideration.
    Mr. LYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question as to whether the reason for postponing the official permission? Is he aware he gave the same reply six months ago, but the prices of petrol and oil and wages have all gone down?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Commissioner of Police is advised by all his advisers that the time has not yet come for it, and we have had no representations from any body of persons.
    Mr. LYLE: I have had this reply given to me every time I have asked this question. What is the reason for the postponement of the official decision? The right hon. Gentleman will never give me that.
    Mr. SHORTT: I have just given it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman says he has not had the application referred to in the question.

    SALE OF SWEETS (HOURS).
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Home Secretary whether, under existing Re-
    1990
    gulations, it is an offence to sell sweets after 8 p.m. in a restaurant and confectioner's shop?
    Mr. SHORTT: Under the Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920, as modified by the amending Act of 1921, the general closing hours for the sale of sweets are 8 p.m. on Sundays, 9.30 p.m. on week-days other than Saturdays, and 10 p.m. on Saturdays, but earlier hours may be fixed in particular districts by orders made by the local authorities under the Shops Act, 1912. After these hours no sweets may be sold in any class of premises except only when supplied as part of a meal for consumption on the premises.

    SALE OF DRINK (HOURS).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that an order has been conveyed from Scotland Yard that in future no more special permits for the extension of hours for the sale of drink in hotels and restaurants will be granted in the West End of London; whether this order has been issued with his authority; whether any cases of abuse of the special extensions hitherto granted have been brought to his notice; if he will state what are the reasons for the issue of such an order; and will he undertake to have the order reconsidered forthwith?
    Mr. SHORTT: No such order has been issued. The Commissioner, however, has been advised that the law confines such permits to special occasions.
    Viscount CURZON: Am I to understand that no further applications from hotels or restaurants in the West End will be considered?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Noble Lord is not to understand anything of the sort. Any application for an extension for a special occasion will, of course, be considered.

  SCOTLAND.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (HEBRIDES).
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can specify the farms in North Uist and South Uist, respectively, for which application has been made for purposes of land settlement for ex-service men and others, and on which no settlement has been made;

    1991
    how many applicants there are in these cases, and whether the Board of Agriculture have definitely refused the applications?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): As the answer to the question is necessarily lengthy, and involves considerable detail, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the answer:
    The farms in North Uist for which application has been made and on which no settlement has yet been effected are as follows: Newton and Cheesebay, Clachan and Vallaquie, Cleat and Ormsay, and Trumisgarry. Negotiations in respect of schemes of settlement on these farms have reached an advanced stage. Eval and Lurinish, and Vallay and Griminish. These farms are not available for settlement under the Small Landholders Act, 1911, except by agreement. Sixty-eight applications for new holdings on these farms, including 33 from ex-service men, and 26 applications for enlargements of existing holdings, have been received by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
    In South Uist holdings have been applied for, but settlements have not been effected, on the following farms: Nunton, Nunton Hill, Drimsdale and Drimore. The lease of Nunton does not expire until Whitsunday, 1927, and Nunton Hill, is not available for settlement under the Act of 1911 except by agreement. Drimsdale and Drimore have been taken over by the Board and a scheme of settlement which will give early entry to holders is now in preparation. In respect of these farms 69 applications for new holdings, including 55 from ex-service men, and 77 applications for enlargements of existing holdings have been received by the Board. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    DEER FORESTS.
    Major M. WOODasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he proposes to adopt the recommendations of the Committee on Deer Forests which reported some time ago; and, in particular, what action, if any, he intends to take in regard to that part of the Committee's Report which, in the opinion of the Committee, requires immediate action?
    Mr. MUNRO: The Report of the Committee on Deer Forests is receiving my consideration, but I have not yet reached a decision upon the various recommendations. Legislation would be required to give effect to the proposals referred to in the last part of the question. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that I shall keep in view the Committee's representation as to urgency.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the extension of these forest areas is in prospect and that legislation is necessary at an early moment?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have just stated I am carefully keeping in mind the urgency of the matter. If my hon. Friend has read the report, he will be the first to deprecate unduly hasty and precipitate legislation.
    Sir J. D. REES: Seeing that the Committee in the commencement of its report decides that the most barren parts of the Highlands cannot, without prohibitive expense, be made cultivable and that the Highlands cannot afford to lose the rating, is there any use in proceeding with their other recommendations?
    Mr. MUNRO: I think my hon. Friend attaches too much importance to the preamble of the report. I certainly think the report is a very valuable one, and I propose to introduce legislation.
    Dr. MURRAY: Will legislation on this report be taken before legislation on the report of the Rural Transport Committee?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL CHILDREN (MEALS).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the decision of the Government that the cost of the feeding of school children, in excess of £300,000 during the current year, must not be borne by the Board of Education, but by the boards of guardians, will involve a charge on local rates which has hitherto been borne to the extent of 5 per cent, by the Treasury, and that, if the necessity for school feeding is no greater this year than last, this will mean an additional cost of £365,000 on already

    1993
    overburdened ratepayers; and, under these circumstances, will the Government make a contribution from the National Exchequer to local authorities equivalent to the amount which would have been paid by the Treasury had this responsibility remained with the local education authorities as has been the case since 1906?
    Mr. MILLSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the decision of the Board of Education to cease feeding certain children will lead to still further burdens being placed on local ratepayers throughout the realm; and what steps, if any, are proposed to ensure that Governmental economies do not divert expenditure in this manner?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): Provision has been made in the Board of Education Estimates for aiding such expenditure as the Government consider can properly be incurred under the Provision of Meals Act, and the Government are not prepared to make any further contribution from the Exchequer towards the expenditure of local authorities for this purpose.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will mean an added burden of over £350,000 to the ratepayers this year which was borne by the Treasury last year, and by what means are they to raise that money?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is an assertion which the hon. Gentleman has made more than once. Indeed, he has put his question more than once, and I hope I am now answering it for the last time, but I do not agree with the assertion. The expenditure last year was wholly abnormal, and the sum provided this year is equal to the expenditure in, I think, each of the three preceding years. It is clearly not proper to charge the education rates with large sums in relief of the poor rates, and though that was done last year it is not a thing that in fairness to the taxpayer should be repeated.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it suggested that the unemployment will be less this year than it was last year and that therefore there will be less likelihood of children requiring food?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There were peculiar circumstances last year, which have often been referred to, which led to
    1994
    an immense increase—I think, a larger increase than there should have been.

    ELEMENTARY SUBSTANTIVE GRANT.
    Mr. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in the case of local educational authorities reducing their expenditure during the current year on special services and administration and other expenditure in connection with elementary education within the limits specified in Command Paper 1,638, their elementary substantive grant will be based on the same formula as last year, even though the increases involved by the carry-over agreement for teachers' salaries under the Burnham scale, as approved by the Board, will make their total net expenditure more than last year?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Subject to the over-riding limit on the total expenditure of local education authorities which can be recognised for grant, and subject to observance of the interior limits on expenditure for special services and for administration and other expenditure, respectively, the existing formula for the calculation of grant will still be applied to expenditure which is not disallowed as extravagant and improper. It will, of course, be understood that the conditions of the Board's Regulations must be observed.
    Mr. THOMSON: What is the basis on which reductions, which the right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed, will be made?
    Mr. FISHER: I have not foreshadowed any reductions.

    GERMAN REPARATION.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether the Reparations Commission has sent a Note to the German Government on the subject of the Treaty of Rapallo between the Russian and German Governments; whether there is any co-ordination between the actions of the Reparations Commission, the Allied Representatives at Genoa, and the League of Nations; or whether these three bodies all communicate with the German Government on different phases of the same subject without reference to each other?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Reparation Commission's Note to the German Government on the subject of the Treaty of Rapallo (which was published in the Press on the 5th instant) states that the Commission has in the Note confined its observations to the questions with which it is immediately concerned. There is, so far as I am aware, no reason to apprehend any danger of confusion arising between the Reparation Commission and the Allied Governments. I have no information that the League of Nations propose to take any action as regards the Treaty of Rapallo.
    Mr. MALONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the channel of communication for co-ordinating the operations of these bodies?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I never thought of inquiring into that question. If they want to communicate with one another, they can, and as long as each minds its own business, they are not likely to come into conflict.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will consent to lay all official papers relating to the inclusion in the reparations claim of charges for pensions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not see how it would be possible to meet the hon. and gallant Member's wish without publishing practically the whole of the proceedings of the Peace Conference in regard to reparation. This could not be done without the consent of all the States which took part, and is, in my opinion, contrary to public interest at present.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman hold that the inclusion of these claims was within the pre-Armistice terms?

    OIL CONCESSIONS, RUSSIA.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Shell Oil Company entered into negotiations with representatives of the Russian Government last November with a view to obtaining a monopoly of petroleum rights in Russia, and that an agreement was signed by both parties during February, 1922, and is now waiting ratification by Moscow; whether these negotiations
    1996
    were carried out with the knowledge and/or consent of His Majesty's Government; whether, in view of the statements in the French Press to the effect that French and Belgian opposition to the Russian policy at Genoa arises from the fact that some of the oil now being contracted for formerly belonged to French and Belgian interests, he will state what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to prevent the settlement of Europe being wrecked by the rivalries of apparently competing oil interests?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that no negotiations with the objects stated have been entered into, and that no such agreement has been signed. The remaining parts of the question do not therefore arise.
    Mr. MALONE: Is the Anglo-French oil agreement, signed at San Remo on the 24th April, 1920, still in force?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise, and I must have notice of that.

    HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the delay in the presentation in another place of the Resolutions for constitutional reform, he would consent to lay a White Paper giving the terms of those Resolutions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am not prepared to take this course.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to expend £9,500,000 during the current financial year on the development and extension of the telephone system in Great Britain; and, if so, can he say what proportion of this sum will be devoted to extending and improving telephonic facilities in rural agricultural areas?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. The amount of monye spent on rural extensions will depend upon the extent to which the con-

    1997
    cessions in respect of charges which were announced on Thursday last meet with response from rural residents. I am hopeful that, with the liberal terms now offered, great extensions of the telephone service will take place in rural as well as urban areas.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Postmaster-General when the extension of the telephone service is likely to be made from Middlesbrough to the neighbouring villages of Marton and Nunthorpe, for which application was made over eight years ago by professional and business people resident in these villages who have businesses in Middlesbrough?
    Mr. PEASE: I hope an exchange will be opened at Marton about six months hence. The original scheme was for a manual exchange, but the cost of providing accommodation was prohibitive, and it was decided to instal an automatic exchange. A site is being acquired, and a building will have to be erected. I much regret the delay that has taken place, but unexpected obstacles have been encountered.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTONasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the admitted necessity of increasing telephone facilities in rural areas, he will allow individual farmers to establish their own telephone connection with the nearest exchanges in cases where the farmer is prepared to shoulder full responsibility in respect of the maintenance of the line and instrument?
    Mr. PEASE: The concessions announced last Thursday enable me to quote in most cases much more favourable terms for exchange lines than has been possible of recent years. I would, however, give careful consideration to an arrangement of the nature suggested in any cases where it is reasonably workable and where the Post Office cannot carry out an extension except at abnormal cost.

    STORNOWAY.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General the number of times during the past 18 months on which the mailboat plying between Stornoway and Kyle of Lochalsh failed to fulfil the terms of contract by not arriving at Stornoway at the scheduled time, and the number of times the failure was due to breakdowns?
    Mr. PEASE: The times of arrival and departure scheduled in the contract for the Stornoway steamer service are approximate only. The essential requirement is that a steamer shall leave Kyle as soon as possible after the arrival of the afternoon train, proceed to Stornoway, and return in time to connect with the 11 a.m. train of the following day from Kyle to the south. During the past 18 months failures to maintain the train connection from Kyle to the south have occurred on 12 occasions. On two of these occasions the failures were reported to be due to breakdown.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the frequent breakdown of the cable communication between the Island of Lewis and the mainland, and the long delays in repairing the same, and also the advisability of wireless contact with ships in danger at sea, he will take steps to reopen the wireless station at Stornoway which was set up by the Admiralty during the War?
    Mr. PEASE: Communication between the Outer Hebrides and the mainland is maintained during cable interruptions by means of the wireless stations at Lochboisdale and Tobermory. The ship and shore stations at Wick and at Malin Head are available for communication with ships on the north-west coast of Scotland, and in the circumstances the re-establishment of the wireless station at Stornoway for the purpose indicated by my hon. Friend would not be justified.
    Dr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the mail boat broke down in a gale recently some wireless messages were sent, but they were not received at Stornoway, and consequently a number of women and children were kept waiting there on the pier all night?
    Mr. PEASE: I am sorry to hear that, and I was not aware of the fact, but the matter has been considered, and it is not thought that we should be justified in giving the extra facilities which the hon. Member desires.

    POSTAL SERVICE, SOUTHERN RUSSIA.
    Sir ROBERT CLOUGHasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters sent to Odessa by way of London are not delivered, and therefore not answered, and that letters sent from Berlin by way of Moscow to Odessa are

    1999
    carried with regularity and safety, and receive answers without any undue delay; whether, under these circumstances, he can re-model the whole of our postal arrangements with Southern Russia; and can he state the reasons for this postal handicap to British traders?
    Mr. PEASE: In accordance with the requirement of the Russian Postal Administration, letter mails for all parts of Soviet Russia despatched from this country are sent to the Office of Exchange of Moscow; and I have no information that correspondence for Odessa is treated differently from correspondence for other parts of Russia. If, however, my hon. Friend can supply me with specific particulars of any cases in which letters for Odessa have been delayed in delivery, or have not been delivered, I will cause enquiries to be made.

    DEPARTMENT OF MINES.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Prime Minister what are the exact duties carried out by the Department of Mines; what is its staff; what is its cost; and whether it is to be regarded as a permanent part of the official machinery?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. The staff of the Mines Department, including the Inspectors of Mines and the temporary staff engaged on winding up financial control, numbers 360. The cost, which is limited by Statute to £250,000 a year, is at present £170,284 a year.
    As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth) on the 26th July last, and to the statement made on the subject by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on the 1st March last, on the recommendations of the Committee on Public Expenditure.

    TRADE FACILITIES ACT (GUARANTEES).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Prime Minister the amount of money that has now been voted by the Trade Facilities
    2000
    Committee, under order of this House, for the promotion of industrial and commercial schemes calculated to stimulate employment; whether it is intended, since unemployment is still acute, to expedite the expenditure of the complete sum during the next few months; and whether he can assure the House that the Committee, being an ad hoc appointment, will not be allowed to become part of permanent Government machinery unless by specific approval of Parliament?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): The guarantees recommended by the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee, up to the present date, represent a capital sum of £15,693,145, and the Committee is doing everything in its power to hasten the completion of its operations. They have laid down the conditions on which they would be prepared to recommend guarantees for further sums up to the full amount available, and are doing their best to expedite the necessary action on the part of the applicants. The Committee, the Members of which are unpaid, was set up in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and must naturally remain in being so long as applications have to be considered. There is no intention to set up any permanent Committee of this kind.

    RUSSO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Agreement recently come to between Germany and Russia provides, among other things, that Krupps shall be allowed to establish armament works in Russia, and that Germany shall prohibit the transport of munitions or troops through her territory for the assistance of Poland and the other Russian border States should they need military assistance to maintain their independence; and if, in view of the menace which these arrangements would involve to the maintenance of a free Poland, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, he will state whether the Allied Governments propose to take steps to secure their effective annulment?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information of any such arrangement. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

    CANADIAN CATTLE EMBAEGO.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to statements on the part of those opposed to the raising of the embargo on Canadian cattle that such action will involve the repeal of the Diseases of Animals Act of 1896; and whether he can assure the House that, in case it be decided to admit Canadian store cattle, there is no intention of allowing the importation of Continental cattle without effective measures to prevent the danger of imported disease?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I have seen statements suggesting that the raising of the embargo on Canadian cattle would involve the repeal of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896. Such action would, no doubt, involve an amendment of the Act of 1896, but not necessarily its repeal, as it applies, and should continue to apply, to other foreign animals, even if the Canadian cattle are exempt from its operation.
    Major M. WOOD: May we take it that, in the event of the House deciding in favour of the removal of the embargo, the Government will take steps to give legislative effect to that decision?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is hypothetical. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better wait to see what happens.
    Mr. HURD: May I ask whether, as a matter of fact, Mr. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, did not intimate at the Imperial Conference that if Canada were exempted from this, Australia would also claim exemption?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think that is so.

    EXTERNAL DEBT.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of unpaid interest had accrued at the 31st March, 1922, upon United States of America Government loans bonds and notes as shown in the Return of External Debt (Cmd. 1,648)?
    Sir R. HORNE: The figure as on 31st March, 1922, was $598,373,000?
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a statement giving the details of
    2002
    the loans from certain Allied Governments, amounting to £128,000,000, set forth in the Return of External Debt, 1922, and also a statement of the debts owed by the same Governments to this country against which this part of the external debt may be set off; and what steps are being taken to effect reciprocal cancellation as between Allied Governments and this country?
    Sir R. HORNE: The details for which the hon. Member asks are as follow:

    ——

    Loans to His Majesty's Government.

    Loans by His Majesty's Government.

    £

    £

    France

    …

    53,500,000

    584,000,000

    Russia

    …

    60,000,000

    655,000,000

    Italy

    …

    14,500,000

    503,000,000

    Total

    …

    128,000,000

    1,742,000,000

    In the cases of France and Italy, it has been agreed that the loans to His Majesty's Government shall be regarded as available to be set off against the loans made by His Majesty's Government to these countries, and it is not proposed to take any further steps in the matter.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL SERVICE).
    Mr. J. JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that ex-service men, married or single, who passed or qualified at the recent competitive examinations for the Civil Service are offered £80 per year plus bonus upon entering, irrespective of age, whilst permanent civil servants receive the same remuneration at the age of 18, he will, in view of the fact that many of these ex-service men have families to support, reconsider this matter and put them on a scale more appropriate to their age and responsibilities?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I would refer to the answer which I gave on the 3rd instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what salary would be

    2003
    paid to established clerical workers entering the Civil Service at the age of 18; what salary, in the ordinary course of events, would such officers be receiving at the age of 25; and what salary is paid to ex-service men, whether married or single who gained admission to the permanent clerical class at the age of 25 by the competitive examination which recently took place?
    Mr. YOUNG: I would refer to the answers given on the 4th ultimo to the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Raper) and on the 3rd instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer).
    Sir F. HALL: Is it true that an ex-service man of 25, after having passed his examination, will be paid the same as a boy of 18, who has just passed his examination?
    Mr. YOUNG: That would depend on the salary he was receiving formerly in his temporary capacity.
    Sir F. HALL: Then it is not true that he would only get the same salary as a boy of 18?
    Mr. YOUNG: It would depend entirely on the circumstances of the case as to the nature of his previous employment.

    INCOME TAX (ARREARS).
    Mr. G. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the arrears of Income Tax unpaid on the following dates, respectively; 31st March, 1919, 31st March, 1920, 31st March, 1921, and 31st March, 1922?
    Sir R. HORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) on the 1st May. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    AFFORESTATION.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made with the afforestation programme; how many trees cut for war purposes have been replaced by seedlings; and how-many of the areas suitable for planting have been utilised, particularly in the area of Kent?
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER (for the Forestry Commission): I have been asked to take over this question. Since the Forestry Commissioners were appointed on 29th November, 1919, 9,801 acres have been planted by them in England and Wales, 6,580 acres in Scotland and to 31st March last, when the Commissioners discontinued forestry operations in Ireland, 1,472 acres had been planted in that country. Approximately 3,300 acres have also been replanted in the Crown woods. The Commissioners have no information as to the number of trees cut for war purposes in privately-owned woods, but their general information is to the effect that replanting is proceeding very slowly. Applications for planting grants under the Forestry Act, 1921, to private individuals and corporate bodies in respect of 12,312 acres have been approved by the Commissioners, but until inspections are completed, it is not possible to say what proportion of that area has actually been planted. Of this area 10 acres are situated in Kent, but the Commissioners are unable to give exact information as to the general progress of re-afforestation in that county.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Could the hon. Gentleman state whether the subsidy which has been paid, or which is owing, to private owners for replanting this last winter, will be available for private owners to replant during the coming winter? I want to know, so that they can make their plans.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better put down a question.

    HYDE PARK (FLOWER BEDS).
    Viscount CURZONasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any steps have yet been taken to restore the flower beds in Hyde Park in conjunction with any of the large horticultural firms?
    Sir JOHN GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): A generous gift of British-grown bulbs has been made to Hyde Park through the Chamber of Horticulture. The question of restoring the flower beds in that park, in conjunction with large horticultural firms, has been considered in the past, but there

    2005
    proved to be many serious objections to the proposal, including the cost involved to the firms. The First Commissioner would be willing, however, to reconsider the matter carefully should any suitable proposal be made.

    COAL PKICES.
    Sir R. CLOUGHasked the Secretary for Mines the average price of coal to home consumers and the average price of coal for export; what is the reason for such a great difference between the two quotations; and whether, since such difference confers an advantage on our foreign trade competitors, he can make any representations to the colliery owners for a reduction in home rates with the object of stimulating trade and employment?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The average declared f.o.b. value of coal exported in March was 22s. 3d. per ton. This includes the cost of carriage from pit to port and is estimated to be equivalent to an average price of between 17s. 6d. and 18s. 6d. at the pit. It is not easy to quote an equivalent average pithead price for home industrial coal as prices range from a few shillings per ton for inferior slack to about 27s. per ton for large steam coal, but I have no reason to suppose that there is an appreciable difference between the price to the foreigner and the price to the home consumer for similar classes of coal. I strongly deprecate the suggestion made at the end of the hon. Member's question. In the coal mining industry both owners and men have made great sacrifices to further a return to economic industrial conditions. Other industries would be better advised to follow the example of the coal mining industry than to call upon it for further sacrifices.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Is it not a fact that when the industry was under control that coal was supplied to British industries and given a preference of at least £1 as compared with the price of coal supplied to foreigners, and having regard to that fact, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government that it is advisable to get back again to control?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think I can endorse the first part of the question; as to the latter I am afraid I cannot agree with the proposal.

    CUSTOMS EXAMINERS, REGENT'S CANAL WHARF.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of Customs examiners employed at the Regent's Canal Wharf, and the salaries paid for the month of March, 1922, and also for the month of March, 1921, when the German Reparations and the Safeguarding of Industries Acts were not in operation?
    Mr. YOUNG: The number of Customs officers employed in examining imports at the Regent's Canal Wharf for the month of March, 1922, was 12, and for the month of March, 1921, was 3. The salaries paid for March, 1922, amounted to £371 19s. 10d., and for March, 1921, to £153 17s. 5d I may add that between the two dates there was a substantial increase of imports at Regent's Canal Wharf, due mainly to the diversion of ships from other parts of the Port, and that the 12 officers referred to were employed on Customs work as a whole and not merely on duties arising in connection with German Reparations and the Safeguarding of Industries Act.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES RETURNS (FEES).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has decided to charge a fee of 10s. upon friendly societies in respect of each annual return made to the Registrar-General; and whether he has made provisions whereby a society with a large number of registered branches shall not be called upon to pay a fee of 10s. in respect of each registered branch?
    Sir R. HORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Yarmouth on this subject.

    BRITISH TRAWLERS (ARREST, ICELAND).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the arrest by Icelandic gunboats of the trawlers "Mikado" and "Sethon" on 24th April in Icelandic waters; if he is aware that the "Mikado" was fined 2,000 kroner and the "Sethon" 2,600 kroner for the alleged offence of having their gear in disorder while at anchor whereas in reality their nets were properly secured and lashed; that the British Consul advised the skippers to plead guilty, though, in the case of the "Sethon," the skipper objected strongly and refused to do so; whether there is any British Consul-General or Consul in Iceland of British nationality; what are his instructions with regard to the protection of British fishermen brought before Icelandic courts; whether the Government will ask for a report in these two cases and have the matter investigated; and whether any representations have been made to the Icelandic Government in reference to the harsh treatment of our fishermen in several recent cases?
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Before this question is answered, may I ask, on a point of Order, whether the question is in order in view of the fact that this is a foreign Government and our Government have no right to interfere with their treatment of British subjects?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: These are British trawlers and have we not the right to interfere and protect them wherever they are?
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: On that point of Order. We have British subjects in Ireland. Have we not the right to interfere in regard to them? Why do we not protect them?
    Mr. J. JONES: There are 5,000 of them in Belfast!
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I have not read in detail this long question, but the real point of it seems to me to be the sending by the British Admiralty of protection sufficient for British trawlers in the North Sea.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: On that point of Order, Sir, may I respectfully inquire
    2008
    if you will allow us to raise the question of sending British troops to protect British subjects in Ireland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a parallel question.
    Earl WINTERTON: I have no information relative to these two incidents. Detailed reports have been called for. All recent complaints of a similar nature, which have been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office, have been carefully investigated. In no case was it found that there was sufficient justification for making formal representations to the Icelandic Government. The penalties imposed for infringement of the Icelandic fisheries laws are undoubtedly severe. It is all the more incumbent on British trawlers intending to fish in the neighbourhood of Iceland to make themselves, beforehand, thoroughly acquainted with the existing regulations. No suitable British subject is available to fill the unsalaried post of British Consul at Reykjavik, which is at present held by Mr. Sigurdsen, an Icelandic subject. Mr. Sigurdsen has general instructions to give his best advice and assistance to all such British subjects as may require his aid, and has carried out these instructions to the best of his ability in his endeavours to protect the legitimate interests of British fishermen.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Noble Lord aware that the complaint is not only against the harshness of the Icelandic treatment, but also against the lack of support given by this Icelander who acts as British Consul? Why cannot some suitable ex-officer of British nationality be employed? There are hundreds available. Is the Noble Lord aware that this is one of many cases of complaint by British trawlers in regard to Iceland?
    Earl WINTERTON: So far as I am aware, the contention made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this gentleman has not given satisfaction is not borne out by the facts. As to the appointment of another person, the post is not a paid post and it is not desirable to make it so; but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any names to bring forward for the post of unpaid Consul, I shall be

    2009
    very glad to have them considered—his own name or that of any other suitable person.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the Noble Lord is aware that the complaint is this: that the British Consul, so-called, advises our sailors to plead guilty; if they do not plead guilty they are fined; but also if they do plead guilty they are fined. In any case, they get no sort of legal assistance from the Consul. They are simple fishermen at a foreign police court, and are placed in this awkward position.
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not quite correct. This gentleman has carried out his duties quite satisfactorily, and for a long time.

  GENOA CONFERENCE.
    GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

      PRIME MINISTER AND M. BARTHOU.
      Mr. WISEasked the Prime Minister if he can give a complete list of the nations and states represented at the Genoa Conference, with the number of their delegates?
      Earl WINTERTON: The nations and states represented at the Genoa Conference are, in addition to Great Britain, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, and New Zealand, the following:

      France.

      Lithuania.

      Italy.

      Latvia

      Japan.

      Poland.

      Belgium.

      Czechoslovakia.

      Germany.

      Austria.

      Russia.

      Hungary.

      Spain.

      Roumania.

      Portugal.

      Jugoslavia.

      Norway.

      Greece.

      Sweden.

      Bulgaria.

      Denmark.

      Holland.

      Finland.

      Albania.

      Switzerland.

      Luxemburg.

      Iceland.

      Esthonia.

      I am not in a position to state the total number of the delegates.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Lord Privy Seal how long the Genoa Conference is expected to last; and when the Prime Minister may be expected back and to make a statement?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I cannot say how long the Conference will last, nor when the Prime Minister will be able to return.
      Colonel NEWMANasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the growing anxiety in the country at the commitments that are being entered into by its representatives at Genoa, he will arrange for a Member of the Government at present at Genoa to return immediately and take the House into his confidence as to the actual position of affaire?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am unable to accept this suggestion
      Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can give the House any further information to-day regarding the position of the Genoa Conference? [An HON. MEMBER: "Is there a burst?"]
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Since I came into the House I have received by telegram from the Prime Minister the text of the letter which he addressed to Monsieur Barthou, and M. Barthou's reply. I think the House will be glad to have them both, although the second was published this morning. The Prime Minister's letter to M. Barthou was in the following terms:
      "My DEAR M. BARTHOU,—I am informed that there appears in the English newspapers to-day a statement regarding our conversation on Saturday, which attributes to me a declaration to the effect that the Entente between France and Great Britain is at an end, and that my advisers were pressing me to come to an understanding with Germany.
      "I have already asked Mr. Chamberlain, who is acting Prime Minister in my absence, to contradict this malicious invention in Parliament this afternoon, and shall be much obliged if you, on your side, will also contradict both statements. I request it, because, as you know, I value Franco-British co-operation too highly to tolerate public mis-statements regarding an official conversation on that subject, at a moment of great importance in the relations of our two countries.
      "I was a strong partisan of the Entente between France and Britain long before the War, and to me, as to every Englishman, this friendship means

      2011
      the more, since it was consecrated by common sacrifice. Hence my great anxiety that nothing should happen to divide the opinion of our two great democracies, upon whose partnership the peace of Europe so largely depends.
      Believe me,
      Yours sincerely,
      (Signed) D. LLOYD GEORGE."
      I think I ought to read, if only for the purpose of record in the OFFICIAL KEPORT, the reply received by the Prime Minister from M. Barthou. It has already been published in this morning's papers—not in all of them in the same conspicuous position or type as the mis-statements which it rebuts. The reply is as follows:
      "MY DEAR MR. LLOYD GEORGE,—You appeal to my testimony regarding the conversation which we had together on Saturday afternoon, and which has aroused so much commentary. Here is my reply:
      You did not say that the Entente between Great Britain and France was at an end, nor did you say that your advisers were pressing you to come to an understanding with Germany. You spoke to me of the difficulties through which the relations of our two countries were passing, but you did not pronounce one word which could be interpreted as expressing an intention to break the friendship which unites them, and I retain all my confidence in that essential union.
      (Signed) LOUIS BARTHOU."
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the publication of these two letters, would it not be possible for us to have in the form of a White Paper the shorthand notes of the conversations which actually took place between the Prime Minister and M. Barthou? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No shorthand notes were taken of that conversation, and it is not customary to take shorthand notes of conversations of that kind.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of something which the Prime Minister said to the effect that there was a minute taken of the conversations, and did the Prime
      2012
      Minister not say that he had no objection to its publication, and could the right hon. Gentleman ask that they should be published in view of the discussion that has taken place?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen that statement, and I am in communication with the Prime Minister upon the subject, but I have not yet received his reply. At the same time it would seem to me that the letters which I have read dispose wholly of the malevolent and unfounded reports which were circulated in a section of the London Press, and I am indisposed myself—I am speaking without any knowledge of the Prime Minister's mind on this point—to set the precedent of publishing notes of these confidential communications, lest they should impede freedom of intercourse on subsequent occasions.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: In view of the vital importance of the maintenance of happy relations between ourselves and France, upon which we are all agreed, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will take an early opportunity of laying a White Paper before the House and the country, containing as much information as it is possible to give to the House and the country, as it must be some time obviously before the Prime Minister will be able to be here himself to make a statement to the House?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am always anxious to give the House the fullest information that it is possible to give as to all aspects of our policy and its development, but when negotiations are proceeding of a very delicate kind on more than one subject of vital importance to the peace of the world, I think it would be contrary to the public interest and injurious to the prospects of peace, that I should lay a Paper of the kind suggested by my right hon. Friend, and at least I hope he will accept my view that it would be unwise to do so at the present time. I am sure that when the Prime Minister comes back he will be only too anxious to take the House into his confidence as fully as possible, and I anticipate that on an early date after his return we shall find an occasion, or make an occasion, for a full explanation by him on his mission to Genoa.
      Mr. REMER: In view of the mischief caused by these malevolent attacks, have

      2013
      the Government given any consideration to suppressing the "Times" and the "Daily Mail"?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And the "Observer."
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the kind of action suggested by my hon. Friend is best calculated to place those newspapers in their proper proportion before European and public opinion outside this country. Here we know what they stand for. We know some of the motives by which they are actuated. No doubt in the course of time public opinion abroad will become as instructed as we are now.
      Sir J. RANDLES: Would it not meet the case if the right hon. Gentleman assures the Prime Minister that the House of Commons, having heard the correspondence read, was extremely gratified to know that there is no grounds for any anxiety in regard to the relations between the two countries?
      Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement made by M. Barthou himself, in a communication to his own Prime Minister, to the effect that the language used by the Prime Minister in his interview with him was of extreme gravity, and under those circumstances would it not be desirable that we should know what was said as well as what was not said.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to M. Barthou's report to his own Government. I read reports of it in the Press, but I have no more means of knowing whether the reports of what the different French representatives said are any more accurate than the reports of what the principal British representatives said, but as far as this incident is concerned, and as far as rumours published in the Press about which I was questioned yesterday are concerned, I should have thought that this correspondence was a sufficient answer.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why is it that the "Times" is singled out for these attacks on the Government when the "Observer" of last Sunday, and other newspapers favourable to the Government, are allowed to say just what
      2014
      they like about the European situation, and particularly to attack French policy?
      Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the memorandum of the 3rd instant to the Soviet delegates, to Clause 7 of which the right hon. Gentleman referred me yesterday, will be laid on the Table of the House?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe it has been already laid, but I do not know definitely. I gave instructions immediately that it should be printed as rapidly as possible.
      Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the French Government to see how it was that the Havas Agency gave out the same report?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I certainly will not take any step of that kind, which would seem to me impertinence. Everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions from the similarity of the news by the "Times" correspondents and the Havas Agency. As to their similarity, I have no knowledge except the statement of my Noble Friend (Lord E. Cecil) yesterday, and the statement which has been repeated by the hon. Gentleman opposite to-day. Of course, I do not dispute it.
      Lord R. CECIL: There are considerable differences. I should not like it to go forth that I said they were exactly the same.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to be made responsible for information which I was accepting but not giving.

SHOP ASSISTANTS AND SMALL SHOPKEEPERS (FACILITIES).
Mr. MACOUISTEN: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Shop Acts."
This Bill is for the purpose of adding to the number of small shopkeepers. When the restriction of hours was introduced for shops, it was a very proper restriction, because, in the case of those who employed others, it was necessary to be careful that they did not sweat and exploit them. There was always a tendency to prolong the hours, in the hope that, the longer it was kept open, the

2015
more customers would come into the shop. Standing behind a shop counter is not hard work like working in a mine or making a highway, but it is exhausting if it is not your own shop. If it is your own shop, it is more or less a continuous holiday, because every customer is looked upon as a fresh fish which you may put into your basket; and if the shopkeeper has had a busy day, and retires to his couch late at night, having sold a great quantity of goods and served many customers, he sleeps the sleep of the just and of the man who has done good business.
It is a totally different thing, however, in the case of the shop assistant. He does not care to be kept busy from morning till night, because, after all, his bare earnings are all that he gets. As is said in the old Book, of which some Members of this House may have a copy, it is the hireling who "earnestly desireth the shadow." That was never said of the man who is working on his own account. When the Shop Hours Act was brought in, it was mistakenly applied to the small shopkeeper working behind his own counter, which is as reasonable, as to apply such regulations to the smallholder, the jobbing plumber, the jobbing shoemaker, or any of those small tradesmen who work on their own account. This Bill proposes to restrict the hours, in all shops where paid assistants are employed, to the hours between nine in the morning and five in the afternoon, so that no man may be allowed to exploit another man's labour for more than eight hours a day. Eight hours a day, after all, is long enough to work for another man, but it is a very short period for which to work on your own account. Then you want to work as long as you possibly can, because, in the hours when you work, you are gaining money for yourself.
It is only fair to give the small man these opportunities, because, owing to the construction of our limited liability laws, which are necessary in order that large enterprises may be engaged in, the chance is given to one man to amass large quantities of capital under his own control, and so exploit not only labour, but capital as well. Therefore it is right that you should give to the small individual, the man who wants to get a start in life for himself, the opportunity to
2016
have greater freedom in fixing his own working hours. No man can overwork himself by compulsion; he does it in his own interest. At present no opportunity is given to the ordinary wage-earner to improve his circumstances. I would like to see such an opportunity given, for instance, to the railwayman who starts work at six in the morning and finishes at two in the afternoon, and does not know what to do with himself for the rest of the day. He is supposed to improve his mind, but he would be very much better occupied in improving his circumstances. Why should not such a man be given the chance, say from six till eight or ten, or even 12 o'clock, of opening a little shop? He may have an industrious and capable wife or daughter who would assist him, and so he might redeem himself from the condition which my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches persist in calling that of a mere wage slave. It would give him the appropriate handicap against the vast stores and multiple shops.
4.0 P.M.
I do not see why all the dice should be loaded in favour of gigantic businesses like Selfridge's, Harrod's, and others. I would far rather see tens of thousands of small shopkeepers working behind their own counters. I wish to see as many men on their own account in this country as possible, and as few masters as possible, because thereby you get greater liberty, greater contentment and more zeal. If I am employing a tradesman, I always employ a man working on his own account; I never go and look for a man who has a lot of men working under him. I have heard painters, when speaking of their master, for whom they had no love, say to one another, "How many pieces—or whatever it is—shall we give him?" And one of them would say, "Oh, six is enough for him," and so they took it easily. But if you are employing a painter, or a paperhanger, or whatever he may be, who is working on his own account, and you tell him the thing is wanted in a hurry, and make a contract with him, he will come early in the morning and will work as long as there is daylight in order to get the job done expeditiously, and done, moreover, with the loving care with which a man does his work when doing his own job and working on his own account. Therefore, for the purpose of promoting the chances of the shop

2017
assistant and of giving him the opportunity, when he has done his eight hours for his employer, of doing something for himself, something better than going to the picture-house or the public-house, or even to lectures, I have inserted a Clause as follows:
"(1) Every shop in which one or more shop assistants in receipt of wages ore employed shall be closed for the serving of customers between the hours of five in the afternoon and nine in the morning; and no assistant in receipt of wages shall be employed in or about the business of the shop between those hours.
(2) Nothing in a closing Order or in any enactment relating to the closing of shops shall apply to any shop in which paid shop assistants are not employed."
That Clause gives absolute freedom to the man who is working as an individual. It will give thousands of wage earners an opportunity of becoming independent, men, and it is a proper handicap to put upon the aggregations of capital which are built up under our limited liability laws. Every man who has a desire to see the improvement of the working classes should support this Bill. I have been widely attacked and circularised because I brought in another Bill to enable tobacco to be sold and bought up till half-past nine at night. There is nothing more calculated to promote homicidal tendencies than that a man should find himself unable to get tobacco after eight o'clock at night, but, if hon. Members will accept this Bill in lieu of the other, it will give an enormous amount of freedom to individual shopkeepers and convenience to the public. An eight-hours day is perhaps long enough for shop assistants, but it is not long enough for shops to remain open for the convenience of the public. In many towns, if you arrive by train at six o'clock you cannot buy an article of any description. These little shops in many country towns and villages, which are merely exchanges of news, one person reading the "Daily Mail" and another the "Daily Express," are all shut up at these abnormal city hours which are only suitable for big warehouses. There is no greater injustice than applying equal laws to unequal matters and trying to make equal that which is unequal. The whole of our shop legislation deals with two totally different circumstances. This Bill gives freedom and liberty to a man to work as he chooses for himself, as we all do in other pro-
2018
fessions as long as we like without interference from anybody. Unfortunately, under regulations which have been made, the working man is completely deprived of all his freedom. He cannot, whether he wants to work or not, put in more than a certain number of hours. I wish to give the shop assistant all the leisure possible. I believe that he works quite long enough, but I also believe in giving an opportunity to the small man, the small shopkeeper, to develop himself to the full. There may be only himself and an energetic spouse or daughter whom he prefers to keep at home in his shop, and there can be no exploitation. The Bill will give to many a man who has never had a chance the opportunity to raise himself into more comfortable and affluent circumstances. For these reasons, I beg to ask leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We have listened for the second time this week to a Measure dealing with hours in shops. I am glad that the hon. Member who has moved this Bill has not been very serious about it. He has made out what appears to be a very plausible case, but I want to point out where his case fails. I can imagine in his constituency a man opening a shop and employing no assistants, competing with a relative who has a shop next door and employs one or two assistants. That person would be able to keep his shop open late at night, whereas his relative, because he employs two or three assistants, would not be able to do so. That would be an intolerable position, and I feel sure that the House will reject this Measure. The hon. Member assumes that this proposal would make it easier for the small man to enter into business. Let me remind him that the number of small business men in this country has gradually diminished in the last quarter of a century. It does not matter in the least what Measure this House may pass, the number of small businesses will continue to decrease. The tendency of the time is in favour of large business concerns by way of co-operative societies and joint stock companies. I would ask the House to give attention to that point. There are employed in and about shops approximately one million young people. Probably three-quarters of that number are young women and young girls, and any Measure passed by this House in the way indicated by the hon. Gentleman will create a tendency to

2019
sweat these young people more than in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] This House has given permission to establish trade boards to regulate wages in the distributive trades, merely on account of the fact that thousands of young people were absolutely sweated in the shops of
this country. I feel sure that the good sense of this House will not permit this Measure to pass.
Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Shop Acts."
The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 114.

Division No. 98.]

AYES.

[4.8 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Ganzoni, sir John

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

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Gardiner, James

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

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Gardner, Ernest

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Atkey, A. R.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Grant, James Augustus

Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Pearce, Sir William

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

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

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hallwood, Augustine

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

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

Reid, D. D.

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

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

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

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Rodger, A. K.

Betterton, Henry B.

Hancock, John George

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Birchall, J. Dearman

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Blair, Sir Reginald

Hogge, James Myles

Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

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

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

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

Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

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

Stewart, Gershom

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

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

Sugden, W. H.

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

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Hurd, Percy A.

Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

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

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

Tickler, Thomas George

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Townley, Maximillan G.

Clough, Sir Robert

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Larmor, Sir Joseph

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

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Cope, Major William

Lindsay, William Arthur

Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

Cralk, Rt. Hon. sir Henry

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Lloyd, George Butler

Windsor, Viscount

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

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

Wise, Frederick

Ednam, Viscount

Lyle, C. E. Leonard

Wolmer, Viscount

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

Foreman, Sir Henry

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Forestier-Walker, L.

Manville, Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Neal, Arthur

Mr. Macquisten and Mr. Bigland.

Frece, Sir Walter de

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

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Finney, Samuel

Jephcott, A. R.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Foot, Isaac

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Forrest, Walter

Johnstone, Joseph

Barrand, A. R.

Galbraith, Samuel

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

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Gange, E. Stanley

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Gillis, William

Kennedy, Thomas

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Kenyon, Barnet

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

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

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

Cairns, John

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

Lunn, William

Cape, Thomas

Grundy, T. W.

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

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

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

Casey, T. W.

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

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hallas, Eldred

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

Coekerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Halls, Walter

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

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Hartshorn, Vernon

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Hayward, Evan

Matthews, David

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Middlebrook, Sir William

Devlin, Joseph

Hills, Major John Waller

Mills, John Edmund

Doyle, N. Grattan

Hinds, John

Morrison, Hugh

Edge, Captain Sir William

Hirst, G. H.

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Rest)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Holmes, J. Stanley

Myers, Thomas

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

Irving, Dan

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

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Jameson, John Gordon

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Spencer, George A.

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Rae, H. Norman

Spoor, B. G.

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Remnant, Sir James

Sturrock, J. Long

Wignall, James

Rendall, Athelstan

Sutton, John Edward

Wilkie, Alexander

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Swan, J. E.

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Robertson, John

Taylor, J.

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

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Rose, Frank H.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Winterton, Earl

Royce, William Stapleton

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Wintringham, Margaret

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

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

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

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

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Simm, M. T.

Waterson, A. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Mr. Rhys Davies and Mr. T. Griffiths.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macquisten, Mr. Charles White, and Rear-Admiral Sueter.

SHOP ASSISTANTS AND SMALL SHOPKEEPERS (FACILITIES) BILL,
"to amend the Shop Acts," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

AUDIT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES, &c.) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL,
"to provide for the payment of contributions by teachers towards the cost of benefits under The School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, and for matters incidental thereto, and to make provision as to the calculation of average salary for the purposes of the said Act," presented by Mr. FISHER; supported by Mr. Herbert Lewis and Mr. Hilton Young; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Turton to act as
2022
Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Rating of Machinery Bill), and Sir Halford Mackinder as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Empire Settlement Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee,
"That, in the case of the London Electric and City and South London Railway Companies, 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."

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Empire Settlement Bill); Mr. Barrand and Sir Davison Dalziel; and had appointed in substitution; Sir Burton Chadwick and Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Norton-Griffiths.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Empire Settlement Bill): Sir Robert Thomas; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Sir Owen Thomas.

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Rating of Machinery Bill): Mr. Lorden.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

BILLS REPOETED.
Grampian Electricity Supply Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Croft's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time.
Morton's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time.

CROFT'S DIVORCE BILL [LORDS] AND MORTON'S DIVORCE BILL [LORDS].
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Croft's Divorce Bills [Lords] and Morton's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the cases, be returned to the House of Lords.—[Mr. C. D. Murray.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause standing on the Order Paper in the names of three hon. Members—(Effect of increased postal rates on election expenses)—is, I imagine, now inoperative, and will have no effect.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Revision of dates.)
    The dates fixed by the Representation of the People Act, 1918 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act"), for the end of the qualifying period and for certain other purposes in connexion with the registration of electors, shall be modified in the manner shown, as respects England and Wales in Part I, as respects Scotland in Part II, and as respects Northern Ireland in Part III, of the Schedule to this Act; and the principal Act shall have effect accordingly.
    The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir William Bull: At the end of the Clause to insert the words
    "Subject to the proviso that until the year 1928—

    (a) the preparation and issue of the half-yearly spring registers shall be suspended;

    (b) that during such period of suspension of such registers the qualifying period and dates relating to the autumn registers shall apply and be operative for the twelve months;

    (c) that during such period of suspension there shall be prepared and issued a supplemental spring register of claimants, for the qualifying period and dates as provided by Part IV and Part V of the Schedule to this Act and the principal Act shall have effect accordingly;

    (d) that such supplementary registers shall contain only the names of persons who have made and sustained a claim to be registered in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as modified by this Act;

    (e) that every claim for the supplemental register shall declare the full postal address or addresses of the claimant's qualifying premises during the seven months preceding the qualifying date, such address or addresses to he printed in the list of claims and in the supplemental register;

    (f) that the supplemental register shall remain in force together with the preceding autumn register until the next autumn register comes into force."

    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill. It would have the effect of disfranchising some people, and really is an Amendment to the franchise law. It is far beyond the scope and Title of the Bill.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: On a point of Order. Might I make an appeal to the Home Secretary to consider whether something in the nature of this Amendment cannot be made? I know that there is more than one party in the House and more than one opinion with regard to this matter. As most hon. Members are aware, I was a Member of the Committee when this question was first considered, and from the point of view of economy very many thousands of pounds might be saved if something of the sort suggested were done. Could not the right hon. Gentleman call a conference of those interested with a view to considering the matter? As a matter of fact, the majority of the elections take place upon the autumn Register——
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: On a point of Order. Are we not having a Debate upon an Amendment which you, Sir, ruled out of Order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) must not make a speech, he can only ask a question.
    Sir W. BULL: I will content myself with asking the Home Secretary whether he cannot consider this matter merely in the interests of economy.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): If any hon. Members who are not in agreement about this question come together and consider the point and put any proposals before me, of course, I shall give them my most careful consideration. This is a matter on which we have endeavoured to get the opinion of the various parties in the House through the ordinary channels. There is a very great difference of opinion upon it but, at the same time, if any new proposal is put forward I will carefully consider it.
    The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Dennis Herbert: At the end of the Clause to insert the words

    2045
    "Subject to the proviso that until the year 1928—

    (a) the preparation and issue of the half-yearly spring registers shall be suspended;

    (b) during such period of suspension of such spring registers the qualifying period and dates relating to the autumn registers shall apply and be operative for the twelve months and the autumn registers shall continue to operate until the next register shall come into force."

    Mr. SPEAKER: The ruling I have just given refers to this Amendment, only more so. This Amendment goes a good deal farther than that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull).

    CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of s. 54 of 51 & 52 Vict., c. 41.)
    Where a representation has been made to a Secretary of State under Section Fifty-four of the Local Government Act, 1888, as amended by any subsequent enactment, to the effect that it is desirable to alter the boundary of any electoral division of a county in England or Wales, or the number of county councillors and electoral divisions in any such county, and where such notice of the proposal in the representation has been given as may have been prescribed by the Secretary of State or inserted in a Statute, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, make an Order under the said Section without causing any local inquiry to be made:
    Provided that if any local authority in or for the county, or any number of local government electors registered for any electoral division in the county, not being less than one hundred or than one-sixth of the electors, whichever number is the smaller, petition the Secretary of State against the proposal in the representation, the Secretary of State shall not make an Order without a local inquiry.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, after the word "State" ["prescribed by the Secretary of State"], to leave out the words "or inserted in a Statute." The words proposed to be left out were inserted in Committee to deal with the case of any regulations. There are no such regulations, and therefore the words are superfluous, and can be omitted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the Amendments on the Paper to the Schedule are consequential upon the Amendments ruled out of order.
    Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

COAL MINES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS AS TO SAFETY LAMPS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I think the explanatory Memorandum attached to this Bill really makes it quite clear that the sole object of the Measure is to secure for the Board of Trade power to carry out a pledge given by the Home Office in 1914 to British lamp-makers. Perhaps I should slightly amplify the story, and start it from the beginning. Before the War most of the glasses used in flame safety lamps were made in Germany or Austria. When the War came on, and the stock of lamp glasses in this country began to get low, the Home Secretary, who was then responsible for mines, felt he was bound to make some effort to produce lamp glasses in this country which should be good enough to be used in mines and should replace the German and Austrian stock as they became used up and could not be renewed. In October, 1914, the Home Office, with the written approval of the Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna), gave an undertaking to the managing director of Messrs. Ackroyd and Best, Ltd., that
"As the German and Austrian manufacturers of safety lamp glasses are no longer able to supply them, their glasses will be removed from the approved list, and, provided English manufacturers are able to supply sufficient numbers of suitable glasses, no German or Austrian glasses will be restored or added to the list for a period of at least three years from the conclusion of the War."
It was necessary, in order to get any English glass manufacturer to undertake this work, that he should be given an opportunity of making good and of not doing the work at a loss. At that time there was plenty of work for glass manufacturers of a more remunerative character, and in order to make these special glasses it was necessary for the manufacturers to set up a new and expensive plant, to get their workers taught and, at a later date, even to introduce workers from foreign countries to instruct their men in the best way of making this kind of lamp. Not only the firm mentioned, but two other firms went to very great expense, which they cer-

2047
tainly would not have undertaken had it not been for the pledge given to them by Mr. McKenna in 1914, and renewed later on by the Ministry of Munitions in 1917. I do not know what was in the Home Secretary's mind in 1914 as to the way in which the prohibition should be enforced. I think, and I have very little doubt that the right hon. Gentleman thought, that under Section 33 of the Coal Mines Act there was power to approve or disapprove of any form of glass. That power rested then with the Home Office, and is now vested in the Board of Trade.
There is, however, some doubt in the minds of legal people whether that Section of the Coal Mines Act really gives power to do more than disapprove of a type of lamp. Therefore, in order to keep the undertaking which was then given and accepted in good faith and acted upon—I would say that the action taken by these manufacturers saved us from a very serious dilemma in time of war and a short time afterwards—this Bill is introduced to make it quite clear that the Board of Trade can have the power to fulfil the pledge then given. It is safeguarded by retaining for the Board of Trade the power to decide whether the glasses are suitable and "sufficient in quantity or reasonable in price." At the present time, I have no complaints about the lamps that have been supplied, though in the earlier process of manufacture there were considerable complaints. I have had no complaints recently, and I have every reason to think that the supply from the firms now making the classes in this country is likely to be adequate. The promise given was for three years after the termination of the War. The official termination of the War being on the 1st September last year, this has rather more than two years to run. I hope the House will allow this Bill to pass in order that we may carry out the pledge given by my predecessor.
Mr. HARTSHORN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us on what he bases his statement that he has every reason to think now that these glasses are satisfactory? Have they been tested by experts, or has any investigation been made as to their utility?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give any answer to the hon. Gentleman except to
2048
say that they have been tested and found suitable. The lamps were tested in various places, I believe.
Mr. SUTTON: Were the tests made in the mines or above ground?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The tests were made in various places. I can give the hon. Member a full answer afterwards.
Mr. ADAMSON: This Bill is brought in for the purpose of giving effect to two separate pledges given by the Home Secretary and the Minister of Munitions in 1914 and 1917. I understand the pledge was given on the distinct understanding that the British manufacturer would be able to supply an equally suitable glass which would compare in all respects with glasses which had been supplied by Germany and Austria previous to the War. So far I do not think the Secretary for Mines has convinced us, from the information at his disposal, that these glasses have conformed to the Regulations laid down, and I should like to put a few questions with a view to bringing out the necessary information before we consent to pass the Bill. There is no doubt that in the early days of the War there were very general complaints by the miners in various parts of the coalfield about the quality of the glass in these lamps. From the information we have been able to secure there was a considerable increase in the number of nystagmus cases and we should like to know a little more about the home made glass as compared with the glasses which were supplied previously. The thing we are mainly conserned with is the effect it is having on our men from the point of view of safety, and we should like to know if this noticeable increase in the number of nystagmus cases can be traced to the use of the British made glass.
We understood there has been a Committee of Inquiry into the quality and the suitability of these glasses for use in the mines. I do not know whether the Secretary for Mines has at his disposal the Report of the Committee, and before we give a Second Reading to the Bill we ought to have that information. The whole question, as far as we are concerned, is whether the home manufacturer is able to supply an equally suitable glass for the purposes of mining as compared with that previously supplied. Safety and health enter largely into the

2049
matter, and the Secretary for Mines and those who represent, mining constituencies are equally responsible for it. I do not think we should be entirely satisfied with tests which are made even at Enfield. I think tests should be made in the workings in the respective parts of the British coalfield as well. This is a matter that we are vitally concerned with, and I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy us before he asks us to be consenting parties to the Bill. There in another element that arises here, namely the question of Protection, but to begin with we are vitally concerned with the safety and health of the men, and it is on this point that we should like to have satisfactory evidence. I do not know whether the Secretary for Mines has any evidence that nystagmus has been on the increase, but that is our impression, and we should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman confirms that information. If it is on the increase there must be some reason for it, and naturally our men came to the conclusion that these glasses which have been introduced since 1914 are to a considerable extent responsible. It is on this point that we want satisfaction. If he cannot satisfy us that this is an equally suitable and safe glass to use he would be well advised to delay further consideration until proper tests have been made which will satisfy those who are vitally interested in the mining industry.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines a question on the legal side of the case he has put to us, whether one of the main objects of the Bill is to remove any legal doubt as to the action of the Department up to date within Section 33 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911. That section says
"Wherever safety lamps are required by this Act or the Regulations of the mine to be used, no safety lamp shall, after the first day of January, 1913, be used by any person employed in the mine, unless it be provided by the owner of the mine, and is of a type for the time being approved, as respects the class of mines to which the mine belongs, by the Secretary of State."
That is, is of a type approved by the Secretary of State and those who advise him. So far as the Bill is required to legalise action which has already been taken under this Section by the Department, I have no objection to it, but in so far as it embarks on a policy of Protection, which limits the field of selection.
2050
of the best kind of glass for miners' lamps, I shall be opposed to it unless some case is made by the Department showing that there is a shortage at present and that the safety of the miners is affected by such legislation as this. If that is proved— until matters stabilise themselves—I shall hear what is said, but I shall withhold my own decision as to what I shall do. All the the right hon. Gentleman said was that as far as information had reached him, or some such general terms as that, he thought the thing was working well. That will not do. There must be something far beyond that. There must be a report of people who understand the matter, and I think the House will be well advised to press upon the Government that this matter should be suspended, except in regard to the point I have already made as to legalising action up to date, until a very strong, indeed, an overwhelming case is made to justify the Government in restricting the field in which the best glass can be obtained not only for the safety, but for the efficiency of the miners in the most difficult and dangerous task which they discharge in the service of the community.
Captain COOTE: It does not require the information which has been asked for by the two right hon. Gentlemen to convince me that this is a thoroughly bad Bill. I can assure them that this is not really a question of getting better information as to the quality of glass which is employed in safety lamps. The reason the Bill is being introduced is because a number of years ago a promise was given by the then Government to a certain firm of glass manufacturers that they should be given what practically amounts to a monopoly of this kind of glass. [Interruption.] If there are three firms who make it that does not prevent it being capable of being made a comparatively close monopoly. Which are the other countries that are affected by this Bill? I understand them to be Germany, Austria and Czecho-slovakia. Of these three the last at any rate is one of those new States which we did a great deal to bring into birth and in which this glass industry is of tremendous importance. With what sort of face can we as a people go to these European countries and ask them to remove barriers and restrictions upon trade and then ourselves come in with a proposal of this sort, which directly

2051
affects one of these countries which we are engaged in urging to revert to more proper and peaceful methods of international commerce? It seems to me that this Bill has no sufficient justification whatever. It is not necessary to await any report of any Committee to condemn it upon what it contains in the proposals which are printed on the Paper, and I hope the House will not readily assent to give a Second Reading even to this Measure, which is totally opposed, not only to the interests of the mining industry, but also, in my opinion, the more general interest of the peaceful stabilisation of the channels and methods of industry throughout Europe.
Mr. KILEY: 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 move the rejection of the Bill on the ground that the Minister in charge has one duty, and one duty only, cast upon him in connection with these lamps, and that is to provide the best lamp that is available in any part of the world, irrespective of whence it may come. If he desires to give some compensation or some reward for some service rendered many years ago, there are plenty of ways and means at his disposal. He knows, as we all know, that if any person rendered any service to the State during the time of War, there are various ways of giving compensation. Such a person can, out of his excess profits, if he has put down special plant, machinery, etc., set off that cost against his profits at the end of the year, and the Commissioners of Excess Profits Duty have treated very leniently any expenditure of this kind. If it is a case of an invention, there is an Inventions Reward Board that gives money. There are various other ways by which money can be obtained for any services rendered to the community during the War. If there is anything due to the manufacturers in question, I suggest to the Minister that that is the proper way to reward them for any services rendered. Having done that, there is one course only open to the Minister, and one responsibility falls upon him, and that is that he should provide the very best-lamps that can be found in the world.
Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
2052
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) brought this Debate back to reality. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) suggested that the use of English-made glass during the War has caused an increase in the percentage of cases of miners' nystagmus. An idea of that sort is so wildly impossible that it is the duty of those of us who know anything at all about pit conditions to nail such a suggestion to the counter. Those Members who have no technical knowledge of these matters may think that the substitution of British glass for Czecho-Slovakian or Austrian glass in the miners' lamps may possibly have had the effect of producing an increase of nystagmus. That is wholly and utterly impossible. The lamp glass manufactured in England would have to be of such an extremely inferior nature that it would be shutting out 10 or 20 per cent, of the actual light to produce such results. Everyone knows perfectly well why the cases of nystagmus have gone up. In the first place, the dise'asc is much better understood now, and doctors are much quicker in diagnosing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In the second place, the spread of moving-picture shows in mining villages has had more to do with aggravating cases of nystagmus than any amount of English glass that ever existed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Hon. Members opposite know it. They have only to ask their doctors and they will find out that that is so.
My reason for objecting to this Bill is very much graver. We are setting up, if we pass this Bill, a very big and valuable monopoly. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill has suggested that there are three separate firms. What on earth is to" prevent these three separate firms from combining, if they are not combined already? One firm is very much bigger than the others, and has had more practice and has spent many more thousands of pounds in development. There is nothing more simple than that as soon as the Bill is through these firms should combine and put up the price of this particular glass in this country Hon. Members who have not technical knowledge may probably think that this is a small matter, and that a few dozen glasses a week are all that are required There are between 750,000 and 1,000,000

2053
safety lamps in use in the collieries of this country and Scotland, certainly over 800,000, probably nearer 1,000,000. So far as my own experience goes, the number of these lamps taken down the pit day by day may be considerably less than the total in existence, but hon. Members who have had some experience of the pit will agree with me that to supply the fresh lamp glasses for 800,000 to 1,000,000 lamps is a very valuable monopoly for any firm that gets it.
Mr. BRIDGEMAM: It is 600,000.
Mr. HOPKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman says that 600,000 is nearer the mark. Supposing the number is 600,000. Having regard to the circumstances in which safety lamps are worked in the pit, the replacing of broken lamp glasses year after year, for three years, in the pits of the United Kingdom, is a monopoly of enormous value to those to whom it is granted. If we have pledged ourselves— I hold that we have not pledged ourselves in the very least; and certainly if we are going to be responsible for every pledge given by every Radical that has ever been in a Government in this country, it is a case of heaven help us—can we not get out of the pledge? Suppose we are responsible for foolish pledges given during the War, when everybody was in a more or less hysterical state, cannot we compensate these people? Cannot we cut our losses, instead of shackling the whole mining industry with a monopoly of this sort? The allegations made against English lamp glasses were made from a totally wrong point of view, and objections were raised which cannot possibly be upheld by medical evidence; but there is no doubt that the Austrians particularly, and I presume also the Czecho-Slovakians, have made an extremely good quality of glass. Again and again a miner's lamp is knocked crooked without going out, and you find the flame has been blackening the glass for perhaps five minutes before you take up the lamp. Glass that will stand that sort of thing is glass of very high quality. There is no question that the Austrians have brought the making of that glass to a very high state of perfection, and it is doubtful whether for some time to come we shall be able to get the same high quality of glass from the English makers as we can from abroad.
2054
If hon. Members will look at the second paragraph in Clause 1, they will see that a proviso is put in that the Minister may refuse to carry out this Bill if he thinks that the glasses which are made in this country are not available in sufficient quantities, are not suitable in quality, or reasonable in price. What does "reasonable in price" mean under these conditions? Supposing the foreign makers of good lamp glasses are offering them here at 3d. or 4d. each, and the English makers are offering them at 1s. and 1s. 6d. 1s 1s. and 1s. 6d., the price offered by the English maker, a reasonable price when foreign makers are offering them at 3d. or 4d.? I protest against this particular phrase in the Bill, because it is typical of the sort of phrases we get in legislation to-day. It is a perfect example of the literary style of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. To put in a phrase of such enormous importance as this must be to a particular trade, a phrase which is so utterly indefinable as the words "reasonable in price," is really an insult to this House. If the right hon. Gentleman is determined to force this unfortunate Bill through the House, I hope he will in Committee try to re-draft that Clause, so that, at any rate, it shall mean something that an intelligent person can understand.
I second the Amendment because this Bill means granting to certain individuals who may have done something to deserve it, though I believe there is no evidence that they have done so, a monopoly of enormous value. That monopoly is being paid for by the mining industry of this country. Any profit which these manufacturers make owing to this monopoly is being paid for by the mineowners of the country in the first instance, and in the last instance it will fall upon the miners. Therefore, I protest, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Bill, and give it a little more consideration instead of forcing it through.
Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I shall vote with reluctance against any Bill which the Government brings in to carry out a pledge. I have a much higher opinion of the keeping of our pledges than the last speaker seemed to think is necessary. As I understand it, the pledge was given by Mr. McKenna when he was Home Secretary. I do not know exactly what the pledge was, but we ought to know.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have read it.
Sir C. WARNER: I did not hear it. I do not mind the exact words, but if the words of the pledge were actually the words of this Bill we should be in an awkward hole. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), who spoke on behalf of the miners, that this is entirely a miners' question. If the health and the lives of the miners are endangered, this Bill raises a very important point. We have to consider whether these lamps of British glass are as safe as the old lamps. If they are not, surely we cannot go into the consideration of a Bill like this. Surely we are not going to sacrifice human life for the sake of carrying out a protective measure, even when it is supposed to be the redemption of a pledge. If it is going to cost human life, we must face the facts, and, if necessary, the Government must pay money down to redeem their pledge, or, instead of money down, they must give some, privilege to replace the pledge. We must not chance the lives of the miners on any question of carrying out what was believed at the time to be a pledge to use English lamps if they were sufficiently good to be used. That means if they are sufficiently safe to be used without endangering the lives of the men.
5.0 P.M.
This is not the moment to put an extra tax upon the mining industry. This morning I was reading that the wages now paid to the miners put the miners in a worse condition than they were in 1914. If that is the case, surely this is not the time to bolster up what may be a monopoly or, at any rate, an industry of a very small kind in this country, and of a very unimportant kind at the present time, thereby taxing the mining industry, which is our greatest and most important industry. The miners themselves were our best and truest support in the days of trouble during the War. I cannot understand why a Bill like this should be brought in without our having absolute proof that these English lamps are as good as any we can buy abroad, or proof being given that it would be ruinous if the Government allows other lamps to come in. If it is a question of compensating two or three firms, that is the business of the Government, but it ought not to be a tax upon any particular
2056
industry in this country. It is true that most of the points which have been raised are points that will be better dealt with in Committee, and it may be that in Committee a great deal that is objectionable might be taken out. The point as to what is a reasonable price and many other points might be thrashed out, and evidence might be brought before the Committee in a much better form than that in which it can be brought before us. At the same time I do think that unless the House have strong evidence that this is not going to cause the loss of a single life in a mine we should support my right hon. Friend.
Mr. SWAN: My colleagues and I would be the last to suggest that pledges ought to be dishonoured, because there has been so much dishonouring of pledges so far as miners are concerned. But there are one or two things which I would like to know and I am pleased that the Home Secretary is here. His Department is most vitally concerned in connection with this Measure if it is passed. What we are apprehensive of on behalf of the miners in connection with this change, regardless of the monopoly price of the glass or whether it is cheap or otherwise, is that the glass used in the mines shall be the best possible glass in order that the miner may do his work efficiently and with the utmost security. My colleagues do not claim the extensive and intensive technical and practical knowledge of which the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) boasts. Men like us who have spent 30 years, and others up to 50 years, in the mines would not seek to compare our knowledge of mining and of the effects of good and bad glass upon the health, with his. But some of us would like to see the experience which he has had as regards some of the lamps which he says can be tumbled over.
Mr. HOPKINSON: I never suggested that there was any question of these lamps at all. It was entirely a question of lamp glass. I reassert the fact that you could not possibly have any effect whatever on the production of this by using English lamps.
Mr. SWAN: We would like to see those lamps which he has seen, not only for five minutes but for five seconds, without smashing or going out. What we are anxious to know is if the Secretary for

2057
Mines and the Home Office have any comparative statistics as to the effect which the lamps, between 1914 and 1920, have upon either the increase or diminution of mining accidents. We do not agree with all the learned technical knowledge of the hon. Member for Mossley. In the year 1914, the last year for which statistics are available, there were recorded 2,774 cases of mining nystagmus, with 3,218 others, making a total of 5,982 cases of nystagmus, Knowing the terrible effects on the health and the loss in productive value to the nation of nystagmus, we want to be very chary in these innovations of lamps which may or may not add to this disease. Our friend suggested that nystagmus is caused, not so much by foul air or bad lamps or bad light in the mines as by moving pictures. If he knew anything about the effects of nystagmus, he would know that one of the first things which the man with nystagmus is told is that he must not go to a moving picture show.
Mr. HOPKINS0N: That accentuates his disease.
Mr. SWAN: Because of the disease he is not permitted to go there. The Home Secretary will come to the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Mines, if he will supply us with data as to the number of nystagmus cases from 1914 to 1922, and allowing for the large number of miners who were out of the mines from 1914 to 1920, and that will enable us to make some comparison as to the value of the lamps that were being used during the last eight years and the lamps used in the mines previous to 1914. This is information of vital importance to us because we know that it has been calculated that if a man is once attacked with nystagmus you never really effect a permanent cure. In the life interests of our men and their dependents, we cannot lend ourselves to the introduction of a Bill that would add to the numbers of those suffering from this terrible disease. During the period of the War we had numerous complaints about the bad lamps that were in use, and what we want now is to have a better lamp placed upon the market so that the health of the miner will not be diminished by compelling him to produce coal to work the machines of gentlemen all over the country. It is not
2058
a question of compensation. We do not want compensation but we want to have the maximum amount of security in the mines and the maximum protection of the life and health of our men, and we hope before a definite decision is arrived at by the Government to place this Bill upon the Statute Book that they will have full inquiry made as to the effect of these lamps, and I hope before the Debate closes that the Home Secretary will get these statistics which are so essential.
Mr. HAYWARD: I cannot conceive a more objectionable form of legislation than pressing this Bill through the House, and when it is applied to a matter of such paramount importance as the glass for safety lamps in the mines, the position becomes alarming. I press upon the hon. Gentleman to take the advice already tendered and suspend this Bill until the House are in possession of further information, because there are some points on which the House ought to have information before they pass the Second Reading. First, there is the question as to whether the Government are compelled, according to the terms of the guarantee agreement, to bring in such a Bill as this. The Secretary for Mines has read out the terms of that guarantee, but we have never yet had an opportunity of reflecting upon it and forming our own judgment as to whether it is necessary to bring in such a Measure unless to carry out the terms of that undertaking. There are two further points on which it is necessary for the House to have further mention. Under this Bill the Minister in charge will be compelled to disapprove of certain types of glass. I would ask whether, under the Bill which has already been approved, it will be possible in future to use such glass? For instance, there may be types of glass coming from countries whose products are excluded, which have already been approved, and if that be so, will further glass of that type be permitted to come into this country? Another question: Why has Czecho-Slovakia been included in the Bill? If I remember exactly the terms of the guarantee which the hon. Gentleman read out, they included Austria and Germany. Is he obliged to include Czecho-Slovakia in the terms of the undertaking which has been given? I shall be glad to have these questions answered.
Mr. D. HERBERT: I feel sure that there is not a Member in any part of this House who does not consider that, in a matter of this sort, the safety and good health of the miners are the very first consideration. I regret very much that I was prevented from hearing the greater part of the speech of my hon. Friend who introduced this Bill, and I am not sure as to what information he gave upon that point. So far as I am concerned—and I suppose it is the same with every other Member—I would sooner see these few firms of glass manufacturers in this country go out of business altogether than do something which would lead to a terrible disease among miners or tend to a decrease in the safety of the miners. But some of the hon. Members opposite, and the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) have taken a very short view of this question. None of them seem to have considered what would be likely to happen in the event of another war breaking out. I know that my hon. Friends opposite will say that we are never going to have another war.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: We do not say that.
Mr. HERBERT: If we are going, as we definitely hope, to get rid for generations to come of a repetition of anything like the Great War, we are still more than ever likely to have economic and trade strife between different countries. If we cannot make these glasses in this country, what is likely to happen if we should, unfortunately, have a quarrel with those few countries from which alone this glass can be obtained? Surely it means either that our mines have to go out of business altogether through the stoppage of the supply of lamps, or that we have to work the mines with lamps of a vastly inferior kind made at home, because we have not learned the way to make them ourselves. If we are to take the long view, in the interests of the safety and health of the miners, there is a deal to toe said for doing something—I do not say for the moment whether this is the best way or not—to see that we ourselves can provide these lamps. Hon. Friends say that this will create a monopoly, and the only hon. Member who took any notice whatever of the proposed safeguards in the Bill is the hon. Member for Mossley who referred to the second
2060
paragraph of Clause 1. Surely, if I am right that we ought to provide these lamps, it is a Committee point as to whether the safeguard against monopoly and high prices is good enough and strong enough or not. In the interests of the miners themselves something is required in order to encourage the manufacture of the very best type of lamp that can be obtained in this county, so that we shall not be at the mercy of any foreign country, either in the event of a war like the last or in the event of a mere trade and economic war.
Mr. ROBERTSON: All mining authorities are agreed upon the necessity of a better and safer lamp for the mines. A great deal of time and money have been spent in that direction in years past. When this supposed pledge was given we had reached a stage in national history when mining authorities were agreed for the time being that they must have something that was inferior to carry us through the national emergency. I approach this question first and foremost from the standpoint of safety in the mines. An hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to what might take place if another war occurred. God knows, none of us wants another war. I want the House not to forget that, while in the late War every section of the community was in the trenches, the miner in the mine every day in the week is in the trenches, and is facing danger whether there is war or not. The first consideration ought to be the safety of the miner. Has the Secretary for Mines attempted to satisfy us that the continuation of this glass keeps the mines as safe as they were in 1914? There is the question of the health of the miner. I hope that the hon. Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson) does not reason that the miner has to work in the mines with an inferior lamp, and not to attend moving pictures. The miner would reason that if the miners defective eyesight is caused by attending moving pictures, nystagmus will be found outside the mining population. That statement shows the folly of the hon. Member's reasoning. He says that if we have the lamp used now it is only 10 per cent. I am a miner, and I put my 20 years' experience underground alongside his experience. He says that this inferior glass only takes 10 per cent.
Mr. HOPKINSON: I never said anything of the sort.
Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member said it may take away 10 per cent.
Mr. HOPKINSON: I did not even say that.
Mr. ROBERTSON: It is very difficult to know what the hon. Member did say until we see it in the OFFICIAL REPOBT to-morrow. I understood him to say that this glass used in the lamps was not so much inferior as to be objected to on the ground of light. If you put 100 per cent, as the maximum value of light, and you take away 5 per cent., it is not missed very much, but if the maximum light is 10 per cent., and you take away 10 per cent., you leave the miner in absolute darkness. If you are working with an inferior light, the amount of light you take away is felt much more than if you take the same percentage from a bright illuminant. I am against this Bill for another reason. The men most deeply concerned were never consulted on this question. This pledge evidently was given to the manufacturers without the miners being considered at all. It is not only a question of safety and of health, but of the extra cost. That will not be borne by the community, but by the miner. 83 per cent, of the extra price, comparing the British glass and the Austrian glass, has to be paid by the miner when it comes to a question of calculating his wage-earning capacity according to the cost of production. We want a better light for the mines, and no one with any knowledge of underground light, even a very limited knowledge, will deny that it is a great necessity. Nothing would tend to minimise serious accidents and the daily incidents that take place in a mine more than the introduction of a better light. This Bill is a step backward. I hope that the House will not approve of such a Measure, affecting the most dangerous of all the industries in this country.
Sir WILLIAM BIRD: I do not think that any of the speakers have had a good word to say for this Bill. Even the Minister in charge of it seemed to think very little of his bantling. Personally, I think the question before us is a very simple question. The question is whether you are to give a monopoly for making this glass to two or three firms in this country, or whether you are to throw the market open and endeavour to get, as you
2062
would get, the best possible glass both for safety and for light. We certainly will not get that by creating a monopoly. The Bill is a step in the other direction. Although I am usually a supporter of Government Measures, I intend, on this Bill, to oppose the Government to the best of my ability. A good deal of what I might call foreign matter has been brought into the discussion; that is questions which do not affect the subject. There is the question, for instance, as to whether or not the glass caused the painful disease to the miners' eyes. No doubt bad glass might have that effect, but I think probably that frequent visits to pictures are more likely to make it a serious disease for the patient than anything else he could do. That, however, is all beside the question. What we want is the very best glass at the lowest possible price. The more you create a monopoly the greater will be the burden thrown on an industry already greatly overburdened. The sooner we can get back to the old doctrine of free trade in this and other matters the better.
Mr. CAIRNS: Having been a miner for 50 years I can claim to speak with some authority on this subject. There are two kinds of lights in the pits—what we call naked lights and safety lights. I want to say to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) that it is not the custom of the miner to put his safety lamp on the floor of the mine. Safety lamps must be hung on the timber with a nail. I hope that when hon. Members speak on this subject they will at least show that they know something about it.
Mr. HOPKINSON: Does the hon. Member suggest that he has never seen a lamp on the floor?
Mr. CAIRNS: It is not permissible for a man to put a lamp on the floor.
Mr. HOPKINSON: He puts it there all the same.
Mr. CAIRNS: If that were done, there would be many more lives lost by explosions of gas. I object to this Bill as being ill-considered. We are told that, there are 600,000 safety lamps in use. The Bill would grant a huge monopoly, and monopolies in industry always increase prices. Take the miners standpoint also. At present all miners' wages are between 20 and 25 per cent, above the 1914 rate. The cost of living is 82

2063
per cent, above the 1914 level. In proposing this Bill the Government are not considering the miners' wages at all. There are miners getting only 6s. or 7s. per day. With the cost of living still 82 points above pre-War level they cannot live on it. The use of defective lights in the mines not only causes neuritis and neurasthenia, but nystagmus, and nystagmus is worse than explosions. There are more men injured by it than by explosions or by falls of roof, slag or sand, and these are due many times to bad lights. Poor lights, especially when the lamp is hanging on the props, prevent men from seeing the roof or sides where they are dangerous, and men and boys are constantly being killed through this defect. We want the best possible light we can get. We want to get a light, if we can, equal to the open day and the sunshine in a quarry, and if we cannot get that, we want to go as far as we can. If some hon. Members had to work in the mine they would be content to work even less than the two hours a day which it has been stated is all that a miner should work. I know of a man who, on looking down a pit mouth, exclaimed: "Good God, who would ever go down there?" and that man was a general. I do not know what the miners of the country have done that they should be penalised so much, and that so little consideration should be shown to them. We have been the most obedient men and the most loyal men in the country, but we are taunted from the other side of this House with being disloyal, although we sent 400,000 men away to fight. Many of these are the men who have to use these lamps. I hope the Minister in charge of this Measure will not proceed with it any further, because we want to save time. Supposing the Government has to pay the difference involved, to pay a half million or even a million is far better than to have men going about suffering from nystagmus and neuritis. Let us remember that a miner never knows when he may contract this disease. It is not like a broken arm or leg. It steals on from day to day and from year to year. You see a man coming out of the pit and suddenly turning his head away, unable to look at the light. It is not due to pictures. If people contract a form of nystagmus from looking at pictures, that
2064
is not miner's nystagmus, but another form. I hope this Measure will be rejected by the House.
Mr. MOSLEY: I should like to comment on some of the words which fall from the hon. Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson). There were two reasons to which he ascribed this disease of nystagmus. The first has already been dealt with, namely, that it was due to attending picture palaces, but the second was an even more remarkable reason, and it has not yet been touched upon. The hon. Gentleman actually said that the increase in this disease was largely owing to our increased knowledge of the disease. What a remarkable argument that as we find, in the spread of medical science, an increased mastery over a disease, so we find an increase in the disease which we are successfully combating.
Mr. HOPKINSON: What I said was that as the disease became easier to diagnose a larger percentage of cases were discovered than when it was very difficult to diagnose.
Mr. MOSLEY: I am happy to observe that already our arguments have induced the hon. Gentleman to cross the Floor of the House, and I hope he will support us in our assault upon this Measure. The hon. Gentleman now says that because it is easier to diagnose the disease, the spread of the disease can be noticed, but if the disease in its incipient stage is more easily diagnosed and can be arrested at that point and if in its later stage it in any case becomes manifest, surely that should lead, not to an increase but a diminution. The hon. Gentleman's is an extraordinary argument to advance, in contravention of the proposition put forward, that the spread of this disease is, in fact, due to defective lamps. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to make a yet more remarkable proposition. He argued that no Government in this country need be bound by the pledges of its predecessors to individual citizens. That is indeed a strange contention to hear from an hon. Member holding the views of my hon. Friend. He said if any Government, in a time of war hysteria, gave a pledge to citizens of this country, a subsequent Government in a cooler and calmer frame of mind would be at liberty to repudiate that pledge. Would the hon. Gentleman say that pledges given to the holders of

2065
War Loan Stock should be repudiated by a subsequent majority in a cooler and calmer frame of mind—pledges which he might argue, on exactly the same hypothesis, were made in a mood of war hysteria and which might be subsequently repudiated, say, by a Labour Government, if such came into power, in a calm frame of mind. The hon. Gentleman is once again watering the deserts of our ignorance from the superfluity of his own omniscience, but on this occasion the gentle rain from heaven has not proved quite so refreshing as usual, especially to those of my colleagues who have spent the time of a generation in the actual toil and dust of the mines. The facts as I see them are these. The right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Government is bound by a very unfortunate pledge through no fault of his own. He must either honour that pledge or compensate the people to whom it is given. If he does not, the whole basis of confidence between the State and its citizens in every walk of life and enterprise would be undermined. So he must take some action of that kind. At the same time it is, firstly, the duty of this House to take into consideration the safety and the health of the miners; and it is, secondly, the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to escape from this pledge in an honourable fashion, if it be in fact detrimental to the safety of these men. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able either to give us a definite assurance that these lamps are as good as any that can be obtained elsewhere, or, in default, that he will be able to say he is prepared to come to an agreement with these firms with which his predecessor entered into an arrangement.
I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any other instances exist, to his knowledge, of cases where protection on a widespread scale has been introduced in a surreptitious manner, without any reference of any kind to this House. An actual widespread system of protection was introduced under an Act which never contemplated anything of the kind. Power was reposed in the hands of the Secretary, to discriminate against lamps of an unsuitable kind, but no power was ever given to him or was ever contemplated, to discriminate against lamps of a suitable type which were merely coming from countries which it was wished to ostracise. This is one, but possibly there
2066
are other instances of the introduction of a system of protection into this country, without any reference of any kind to this House. The right hon. Gentleman in this case saw it was actually ultra vires and he has been compelled to ask the sanction of the House, but this is a warning that other cases of this kind may exist, in which, with no legislative sanction, the Government imposed a marked process of protection.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to intervene at this stage, if I may do so by the kindness of the House, as a good many questions have been asked and a good many points have been raised which I should like to explain and reply to. I take one small point raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Major Hayward) in regard to Czecho-Slovakia and the arrangement made by Mr. McKenna in 1914. We did not think of it as Czechoslovakia in those days, but the place where the Austrian lamps were made is ill Czecho-Slovakia now. I should like to make it quite clear that I am quite satisfied as to the safety of these lamps from the tests that have been made and the reports of my own inspectors, but perhaps I did not emphasise that sufficiently when I spoke before. I think hon. Members realise that these tests were severe tests very carefully carried out both as to durability and safety. To go further than that, I am quite prepared to say that if we get the Second Reading of the Bill, we will not go into any further stage until we have consulted those who represent the miners in this House and decide as to whether further tests are necessary in order to make it quite clear that there is nothing detrimental in them.
Mr. KILEY: There might be a new invention next week, and you would not be in a position to utilise it.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to proceed. I could not answer all these points even if they were of interest.
Mr. KILEY: It is of some interest to the miners.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am trying to speak of the miners.
Mr. KILEY: You should not be rude.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I apologise if I have been rude, and I come back to the question of safety. As everybody has said, it is absolutely essential that we should be absolutely secure in regard to that. With regard to nystagmus I think a good deal of misapprehension has been displayed. It is quite true that the Committee appointed to investigate it have pointed out that deficient light is a cause of the disease, but I do not think anybody has been able to> show that these glasses in any way impair the light. The real solution lies in making the pits lighter. If we could utilise the electric lamp and electric lighting it would be better than these flame safety lamps. The lamps dealt with in this Bill are merely the flame safety lamps and not the electric lamps. If the Nystagmus Committee had supposed for a moment that the use of English-made lamp glass had led to an increase in nystagmus, they would certainly have said so in their Report, and so, I think, would the Committee that we had on miners' lamp glasses. A good many Members have spoken of a great monopoly being set up.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to leave that part of the question without any further information? Does he not know the smokeless quality of British-made glass has been so inferior that there has been a number of complaints, and does he not know that the glass would not stand the test of expansion and contraction when taken into the main roadways?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was coming back to that question. If there is any other test that hon. Members representing the miners would like to have applied, we will certainly go into that before we carry the Bill a stage further. With regard to the arguments about monopoly and protection, I do not propose to enter into them. Those who think that the right hon. Gentleman who gave this pledge was a protectionist had better argue it out with him, and as to the monopoly it is a very small point. It is only a question of two years, and as for the additional cost to the industry or the public, I am sure the most it could be would be about one-twentieth of a penny per ton of coal. I do not think those are really relevant questions. There are two important questions for us to-day—first of all the pledge, and secondly, whether
2068
it can be carried out without endangering safety. [An HON. MEMBER: "That should be the first."] The hon. Member can put them which way he likes. With regard to the pledge, if any hon. Gentleman in this House had been in the position that the Home Secretary was in then and the Minister of Munitions was in subsequently, and had seen the supply of lamp glasses gradually being worked out, and that while the War was at its very height we were running the risk of having no adequate glasses in the pits at all, and that it was impossible to get them made without giving the makers some indication that they would not be the losers by it, if any hon. Gentleman had been in that position at that time, I think he would have acted in the same way that Mr. McKenna did and who ever the Minister was at the Munitions Department in the year 1917.
Mr. R. RICHARDSON: They were Bolsheviks, who demanded it at the expense of the lives of the miners.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I thought it was the protection of the miners. We had to use inferior lamps at that time, because there were no others, and what we wanted was to get English makers to make lamps which were not inferior, and they had to learn how to make them. They have done so, and they have put a great deal of time and trouble and expense into the experiment. I therefore say this, that any hon. Gentleman in this House who had been in the position of the Home Secretary at that time would have acted as he did, and anybody in my position now would, I am sure, have felt it his duty to carry out the pledge that was given them in good faith and which was acted upon by these glass makers. What we have to satisfy ourselves about is that there is nothing in this Bill which is detrimental to the safety of the miners, and it will be quite easy in Committee to strengthen the Clauses in the Bill to meet that, but I do not want even to go as far as that without having received from the representatives of the miners whatever evidence they have got that the glasses as they are now used for these particular lamps are bad. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or inferior."] Of two lamps of the same make, one, of course, may be inferior to the other, and I cannot say that these are the best lamps that have ever been made or could be made. Some-

2069
one might invent a new process to-morrow, but the pledge was that for three years after the War no Austrian or German glasses should be introduced. It does not apply to other countries, and therefore you have the competition of America and Belgium. I do not say there might not be some other way of keeping faith with them. But we cannot repudiate this pledge that has been given without making it up to them in some other way.
Dr. MURRAY: Has not the pledge been already fulfilled? Do these firms insist upon the letter of the law, the legal termination of the War, rather than the cessation of hostilities?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, they naturally ask for what everybody else has recognised as the official end of the War.
Dr. MURRAY: Is there nothing technical in that?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite certain of this, that although I believe the lamps they are making now are efficient and good, it took them a very long time and a great deal of trouble and expense to get to that standard, and the pledge would certainly not be fulfilled by using the phrase "termination of the War" in a different sense from that in which it has been used in all other connections. What I would suggest to the House is that we should pass the Second Reading of this Bill now—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and before proceeding any further, whether we proceed with it lay taking it to a Committee upstairs, or to a Select Committee, I should ask the representatives of the miners to put before me any objections they have to these particular glasses, and any desire they have to have them tested in some further way than we are testing them now, and to satisfy them, as I hope we could, that before we continued with the Bill the question of safety had been thoroughly safeguarded.
Sir D. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines has, with his usual fairness and courtesy, endeavoured to meet the case which has been presented from this side of the House, and I am really very anxious that this question should not drift into a matter which should be decided as between one side of the House and the other. Therefore I make the suggestion to my
2070
right hon. Friend, that he should adjourn this Debate, and meanwhile he would have an opportunity, with his advisers, of consulting the representatives of the miners themselves. He will forgive me for saying that I think that ought to have been done before the Bill was presented.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have never had any complaint.
Sir D. MACLEAN: He may not have had a complaint, but I think it ought to have been done, and, at any rate, there is no reason why it should not be done now before the House passes the Second Reading of the Bill. I want to make it very clear to him, if I have not already done so, that I am not asking that in any hostile spirit to his Department or himself, but I think it is the proper way, if I may say so, of dealing with the matter, since it concerns the House as a whole, and not, any particular part of it, and I urge that very strongly upon him. The Government is not pressed for time, and it could be done within a fortnight, and then my right hon. Friend would be in possession of the views of the miners themselves. Then, if it were thought fit, which would be very likely, the Second Reading might be taken and the Bill referred to a Select Committee. I do not know how that meets with the views of my right hon. Friend. On the question of protection, we are bound by the pledge; there is no doubt about that. Whether it is a technical carrying out of the pledge or not, there are differences of opinion. I think it is rather pressing a technical view of the subject, because nobody expected for a moment that the legal termination of the War would take place 2½ years after the cessation of hostilities. However, there is no use going into that, for other citizens and associations of citizens have pressed upon the Government the technical view of the termination of the War, and these gentlemen, whoever they are, are as much entitled to that view of the case as any other citizens. I accept that> but the real point is this. Are the safety of the miners and his well-being fully and amply secured in every respect? I do not know whether I might venture to offer a word of suggestion to the House as a whole, but I do not think it would be the real Parliamentary dealing with this

2071
matter to give the Second Reading today. I think the right and fair method, and the absolutely non-party method, is to adjourn the Second Reading, consult the interests concerned, and then bring the matter up again, with all the information which is available, and let the House decide then. I think that is the right way, and I would urge it on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines.
6.0 P.M.
Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: I am not going to argue for one moment with regard to the desirability or otherwise of getting out of our pledges, unless the redeeming of the pledge, as it does appear to all of us in this case, is going to run counter to the safety of the men who are employed in the pits. In that case we shall be violently opposed to any price being paid by way of a monopoly or otherwise in the manufacture of lamp glasses. No doubt they were patriots to that extent, that they did put down machinery and plant and organisation for the manufacture of these glasses during the time of the War, but that has been represented over and over again. For the moment, however, what is very important to us is the question of the safety of our men. Are the glasses that are now being provided up to the standard of safety? That is the question, notwithstanding what has been said by a previous speaker, who displayed very little real, practical knowledge of underground work. I have already asked the Secretary for Mines as to the results of the Committee which has been sitting at the Home Office, and has gone very extensively into the complaints in respect of lamp glasses. Of course, it is not a question of the other parts of the lamp. We are only talking of that portion of the lamp which is fitted with the glass to render light to the miners at work. The difficulties under which the miner works have already been pointed out, and I asked a question as to the smoke-resisting property of the British glass, for the very reason that the complaint is that the glasses supplied even to-day are not of that standard quality we got before the War, and able to resist the smoke. In my opinion—and in our district I speak from knowledge—the increase of nystagmus has been enormous since these glasses of British make have been pro-
2072
vided. There can be no doubt with regard to that, and if the Secretary for Mines would come down with me to my district some day, I would convince him that miners are complaining as strongly of the type of glasses that are being provided as they did at the commencement. The experience is borne out by those who deal with the glasses in the lamp room, that there are more glasses cracked during the operations of miners because of their less-resisting power. In the main roadways there is a huge current of ventilation. At one point it is cold almost to freezing point, and a man may take the lamp to the return station only 20 or 30 yards away between the two doors, and he gets into a temperature up to 80, 90 or 100 degrees. Innumerable cases have been found where the glasses have cracked because of the sudden change of temperature.
I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to consent to the postponement of this question. Let us get the result of the Committee that has been sitting at the Home Office, and let us find out exactly where we are. If the tests are going to be continued, let them be continued not only at Eskmeals or any other Government station, but conducted in circumstances underground where, with the least danger, a practical test can be made. You will then find that, unless the workmen are very vigilant with regard to their lamps, the danger of an explosion is imminent always. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to postpone this Bill. It is not urgent. We can at least postpone it for two or three weeks to let the test be carried out, and, in that way, we shall be doing something at least to safeguard, so far as we possibly can, the life and the health of the miner. All agree that the miner is deserving of the best possible conditions, as he is working under a state of grave danger always, and it is highly important that he should get the best conditions. There are more fatal accidents from falls of roof in the mines than from any other cause, even including explosions. That being the case, we ought to bend our efforts in the direction of giving the miner the best light in which to follow out his occupation.
Mr. HARTSHORN: I think so much has been said on this subject, that it is becoming a waste of time to pursue this

2073
Debate, at any rate, for any considerable length. I rise merely for the purpose of adding my appeal to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) and the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and emphasised by several other speakers, for the postponement of this Bill until an opportunity has been given to the miners, and everybody interested in this subject, to ascertain whether or not the defects which were known to exist a short time ago in these glasses have now been remedied. We cannot have any stronger reason for a postponement than that given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines himself in the two speeches he has just delivered. Like myself, I think he has been rather taken unawares. When he introduced the Bill, he said that it was known some time ago there, was great dissatisfaction with these glasses. He knew that from reports reaching him, but he said, so far as ho could gather at present, those complaints did not now exist. I was rather surprised the right hon. Gentleman did not say something more than that, because I have been under the impression that a special Committee has been set up to inquire into these lamp glasses, and that a report had been issued that tests had been conducted at Eskmeals and other places, and that we had a report upon which this Bill was based. I gathered from the second statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that he is now of opinion that it is desirable not to proceed with this Bill, at any rate, further than the Second Beading, until there has been a consultation and conference with the representatives of the minors, to enable them to bring forward evidence as to the present condition of these glasses. I remember very well some time ago being called into a colliery office to deal with complaints made by the workmen about the condition of the lamps due to the glasses, and I was amazed to hear the statement of the general manager as to what he had discovered. He said he had discovered that, although the lamps when properly tested in the lamp station in the morning were in perfect condition, a very considerable percentage of these lamp glasses were brought in in the evening in a broken condition; in other words, these lamps were converted from safety lamps into ordinary lamps. In Wales, especially
2074
where we have had such awful explosions in the mines, this is regarded as a very serious matter, and I know one general manager who scrapped a whole consignment of these things, and declined to have another one of them used in any of the lamps in his colliery.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Where did he get them?
Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not know. All I can say is we had samples of them. We have also had very considerable complaints about the smothered condition of these lamps. It is well known that this miners' disease so much discussed this evening—nystagmus—is due very largely to the condition of the lamps, and there is said to be among miners definite evidence and proof that nystagmus has increased since these glasses have been, produced. I do not know, but I do know that when they were introduced, and the men were threatening to discontinue work in the mines on account of them, we were-bound to induce the men to go on by telling them there were no other glasses available, and that either they must use these or the collieries must close down, and under the stress of war the men did things that they would not otherwise do. It is quite possible that much of the discontent that existed then is still present to-day, but it is marvellous what the miners will become accustomed to and will put up with. But if they are suffering still under the sense that they are using an inferior glass, and they once get to know that that defect can be remedied, but that this House is pressing, a Bill to prevent an improvement being effected, then we shall certainly hear very serious complaints about what is taking place.
There is only one reason given for the introduction of this Bill, and that is that a pledge was given in 1914. I think we had better not talk so much about pledges, at any rate, so far as they affect the mining industry. I think if Mr. McKenna, who made this pledge, were in the House of Commons, he might possibly be entitled to talk about keeping pledges, but, having regard to the way pledges to the miners have been broken in 1918, 1919, and 1920—pledges that were made and broken even while the breath was warm—the less said about that the better. Whether the mere adjournment

2075
of this discussion until such time as the Minister shall have had a consultation with the miners' representatives, so that we may find out, it may be, that the complaints have been remedied or otherwise, is to the point. I do not know. Perhaps it is. Yesterday, before I left the House, I had a communication from one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines asking me to attend a meeting to arrange for going underground to take a test, to make an experiment with these lamp glasses. I rather think that is going on at the moment. In view of that, I hope the Minister will see his way to adjourn the further consideration of this Bill, and we will do all we possibly can in the meantime to find out for ourselves what is the position.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Once more I must say I am very much indebted to the House for the serious way in which they have recognised the somewhat embarrassing position in which this pledge of Mr. McKenna puts me. In regard to making pledges, I do not want to be too dogmatic, but it would not appear to be a pleasanter task to break somebody else's pledge than the pledge given by oneself. Really, how ever, all there is between us at the moment is as to whether or not we should adjourn this discussion before we have the Second Reading or after. What you want to do is to get this evidence, if there is any, to show that these things are not satisfactory. I was certainly under the impression that all this grievance had been removed, but if it can be proved that grievances have not been removed, then that puts a different aspect upon the subject. I think it is only fair that we should, at any rate, before proceeding any further satisfy ourselves on the point. Therefore, I am not prepared to press the Second Reading to-day. I should like, however, to have some undertaking that if we get this evidence, and it is proved that these lamps are quite safe and satisfactory, that we should be allowed to have the Second Reading without having this Debate all over again at a later date. If the investigation satisfies us that there is no danger, I think it is not asking too much that we should not have the speeches of to-day repeated. I am not complaining of them. We have had a very interesting Debate. I think it shows what everybody in this House feels, that the safety and the health of the men is the
2076
first thing that we set before us. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that proposal, I should be very glad to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
Mr. KILEY: What about my Amendment, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. ADAMSON: I am very glad to hear the Secretary for Mines say that he is prepared to accept the suggestion made that the further consideration of this Bill should be postponed until we get an opportunity to go fully into the question of whether the home-made lamp is as safe as that in which are the other glasses previously supplied to us. In agreeing to the adjournment he wants us to give him a pledge that if he finds that the home-made glasses are quite as satisfactory as they should be, that he shall have the Second Reading without having the same set of speeches over again. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the same speakers."] It would be impossible for me to give a pledge of that character. But I have no doubt that, what Debate may be required afterwards, after full and satisfactory inquiries have been made, will be conducted with the same good taste as it has been conducted to-day. If it is so conducted, there will not be the same speeches delivered, and there will not be repetition. What we are primarily concerned about is the safety and the health of our men. If following the inquiry we are satisfied, then you have met the reasons that we, at present, have against this Bill. I think the Minister ought to be satisfied with that. I think the suggestion I made might now be accepted and the further consideration of the Bill adjourned until the inquiry has been made.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— [Mr. Bridgeman.]
Mr. HOPKINSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman please note that I do not withdraw my opposition in the monopoly question in case this matter comes up again?
Mr. KILEY: Do we at the same time adjourn the Amendment "That this Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months"?
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
Debate adjourned accordingly; to be resumed to-morrow.

LUNACY BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I desire, in a very few words to point out what the Bill is intended to do. It may be remembered that some few months ago the Master in Lunacy, who was a Member of this House, unhappily died. That caused a vacancy among the Masters. The opportunity is now being taken to effect the reform of reducing the number of Masters in Lunacy from two to one. For that purpose such a Bill as this is necessary. Incidentally, inasmuch as we are going to allow one Master only, it is necessary to provide that there shall be, in the case of illness or the absence of the single Master in Lunacy, an Assistant Master, or somebody else clothed with these functions to carry on the business in the absence of the one Master. That is really all this first Clause does. It affects an economy, and I hope the House will agree to its being adopted.
Advantage has been taken of Clause 2 to effect one or two very technical and also very useful reforms in the Lunacy Acts. These are matters which ought to be discussed in Committee. They are really matters which are appropriate and suitable for such discussion. Let me mention two of them to show their character. One is embodied in a provision in Clause 2, Sub-section (2), that a number of Sections, some ten, of the Lunacy Act of 1890 shall be made applicable to criminal lunatics. At the present moment, by virtue of the definition Clause in the Lunacy Act, 1890, it is impossible to make use of the little series of Clauses which enable vesting and other Orders to be made and due and proper control of criminal lunatics to be effected. There are those who feel that at present a cumbrous procedure is involved, and it has been thought wise that the House should accept the matter, and apply
2078
these nine or ten Sections to the vesting of the property of lunatics in appropriate persons and so on.
Let me take one other matter which is rather technical. Where there has been a sale of copyhold or customary lands the proceeds are paid into court to the credit of the lunatic, and it is provided that on the death of the lunatic the proceeds can be dealt with without actual reference to the customary heir, or other persons, of course, subject to the safeguards provided in the whole scheme of the Lunacy Acts. These are really small incidental changes which are deemed to be improvements. They are subjects for Committee, and the Bill has already been read and comes down to us from another place. In view of this, I hope the House will consent to a Second Reading in order that the detailed provisions may be examined and the consent of the House given to the passage of the Bill, the primary purpose of which is to secure economy in the administration of the Lunacy Acts.
Sir D. MACLEAN: In legislation of this kind affecting the Lunacy Laws it is particularly desirable that full and adequate statements should be made of any change, however slight it may be, for the reason that public attention has of late been directed to the law in relation to those persons who are entirely deprived of the light of reason. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General has discharged that duty quite fully. It is apparently quite clear that this Measure in no way affects the general law of lunacy.
Sir E. POLLOCK: Hear, hear!
Sir D. MACLEAN: I therefore only just make one point on the first Clause. It is one of appreciation of the fact that here we have an economy, and to express the fervent hope that it is one of many others which will follow during this Session of Parliament, since we are going to have lots of time before us. I hope the Attorney-General, in the discharge of the duties of his high office, will apply his mind to searching for quite a number of instances, not dissimilar to this. There are, in the law, as in other departments of the State, many offices which can be overhauled when opportunity arises, and there are unnecessary public servants or offices which have been demonstrated to be unnecessary.

2079
Bills of this kind should be brought in, and every opportunity taken to save the public money, wherever it is at present unnecessarily spent in the duplication of useless offices.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is pleased with any steps in the direction of economy. I was going to raise the very same subject myself, but I am not sure that there is going to be any economy. I can quite see how this Bill may be worked so that there will not be any economy at all. The first Clause says:
"Instead of two Masters in Lunacy there shall be a single Master in Lunacy—"
So far so good, but then it goes on to say
"who shall be assisted by one of his officers, and who shall be termed the Assistant Master in Lunacy."
I want to make sure that we are not abolishing one Master in Lunacy in order to put another in his place. We have not been told what the salary of the Assistant Master is going to be, or whether he will have a permanent salary. The fact that he is going to discharge the duties previously performed by a master in lunacy may be given as a reason for entitling him to the same salary as was paid previously. It is a very common method of presuming to perform an economy by displacing a certain official and then giving another official assistance to help him to do the work, and very often the result is that there is no economy effected. Clause 1 says:
"who shall be assisted by one of his officers."
That will create a vacancy, and I want to know if there is going to be another officer appointed. I wish to know what is actually going to take place. Before we assent to this Measure I think we should be quite clear on these points.
Mr. HAYWARD: According to Subsection (3) of Clause 1, it is provided that
"No person shall be qualified to be appointed Assistant Master unless he is either already an officer of the Master or is a barrister or solicitor of not less than five years' standing."
The point I wish to have made clear is whether the word "already" applies only to the first appointment, and whether it applies to the time of the passing of this Bill into law or to future appointments
2080
also. I want to know whether if future vacancies arise after the first then an unqualified person, if he be an officer of the Master, whether such persons would be qualified to hold the office of Assistant Master in Lunacy.
Mr. D. HERBERT: I want to know who is going to appoint the Assistant Master in Lunacy. It is not clear to me whether the appointment is in the hands of the Master in Lunacy or not. In the past the office of the Master in Lunacy has sometimes been held by a gentleman who has been regarded in the profession rather as holding an office in the nature of a pension when he perhaps had passed the years of capacity for really doing his work. Needless to say, I do not refer to a late Member of this House, whose decease we all deplore, or the present occupant of the office. The Attorney-General will probably understand what I mean when I say that there has been in the past cases where it would be felt that the appointment of such an officer as the Assistant. Master in Lunacy should be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, or in the hands of somebody other than the Master in Lunacy himself. Apart from that, I only want to congratulate the Government upon this small measure of economy, which I think will be a real economy. We have heard the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London on this point. I have had some experience——
Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member has already said that this was equivalent to appointing another master, and that is why I am afraid there will be no economy.
Mr. HERBERT: The assistant master will be the equivalent to a master and he will have the same powers, and it is no reflection upon the present master to say that his principal assistant at the present time is a man of immense energy, capacity and experience in this particular work, and as far as I can judge by the way things have been worked in the past, he will not really have any more work to do than he has done in the past. It is merely a case where he will continue to do a very great amount of work, but in the future he will be able to sign orders and make orders himself without the necessity of going to the master in some cases, because there are many cases in which this could be done. I want to know what is meant by

2081
the qualification of "being already an officer of the master." If that is merely intended to cover a technical difficulty there can be no objection to it, but otherwise it should be discussed in Committee as to whether it would be right to appoint a man whose only experience was that of being a clerk in the Lunacy Office, without being qualified in either of the specified branches of the legal profession.
Mr. CAUTLEY: I wish to ask a question in regard to the Title, which refers only to Chancery lunatics. Does that include lunatics other than criminal lunatics? I was always under the impression that lunatics in the country were steadily increasing, and if that be so I would like to know how it is that the right hon. Gentleman is able to effect an economy of this mature, if it really is going to be an economy. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London has very grave doubts about this point, and he thinks that this will be merely a change in name and that no economy is intended.
Mr. RENDALL: I wish to know whether it is intended that the Assistant Master in Lunacy can only exercise these powers in the absence of the Master?
Mr. D. HERBERT: I was not under that impression, but that contingency is one of the very important reasons which make it necessary to have an Assistant Master in Lunacy.
Mr. RENDALL: The Assistant Master in Lunacy will have all the powers of the Master in Lunacy. They will be given by the Master in Lunacy, and he will be able to exercise them. The present Assistant Master has been a very valuable officer, and it would be difficult to raise any objection to his being made the Assistant Master in Lunacy. Nevertheless, I demur to a provision like that contained in Subsection (3) of Clause I, which is going to make permanent the power of appointing as. Assistant Master in Lunacy a man who has not been trained either as a barrister or a solicitor, I think we ought to protest against the possibility that this provision may be used in general practice to appoint an ordinary officer in a Department to such an important post as this. This officer is going to deal with the lives and property of persons who cannot protect themselves, and the law of the land
2082
ought to be that such a person should be a trained lawyer.
Sir E. POLLOCK: I will answer two or three of the questions that have been put to me, so far as I can. I think most of them are really Committee points except the one raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who seems to be a little doubtful whether this is an economy at all. I only wish that in these matters many of us had the same ingenuity as the right hon. Baronet, and could work an Act with the same subtlety, because then we might be able to get round a great many difficulties. I have already explained that the purpose of this Act is to effect an economy and not to have two Masters in Lunacy appointed who must be barristers of ten years' standing, but to make use of the one Master and then to have assistance which can be rendered by an Assistant Master, who need not have the high qualifications of the Master of being a barrister of not less than ten years' standing, appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
Sir F. BANBURY: Will the Attorney-General say what amount of money is likely to be saved by this Bill?
Sir E. POLLOCK: I cannot answer that, but I will endeavour, by the time the Committee stage is reached, to give the figure. It would depend upon what arrangements the Treasury may make as to the salary of the Assistant Master, but I think it is fair to say that the intention is that instead of two Masters, we should have one Master and one assistant. I do not know whether it is intended to give him any increase in salary. Perhaps the-happiest way of putting it is that suggested by the hon. Member for Watford, namely, that in the end there will one and a half Masters instead of two. The whole purpose of the Bill is to carry out the recommendations of the Committee and to effect economy, and as to that, I can give no better authority than that of the Lord Chancellor, who has introduced the Bill for this purpose. That is the purpose of the Bill, and it is with that object that I am now moving its Second Reading. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) asked what were Chancery lunatics. He is correct in suggesting that they are all the lunatics who are under the jurisdic-

2083
tion of the Lord Chancellor, and in respect of whom the Lords Justices, who are made Judges in Lunacy for the purpose of the Act, have jurisdiction. The expression is a very old and somewhat archaic one, and is used in the title of this Bill because it has been used in almost all the Acts dealing with the lunacy laws.
With regard to Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, its terms are general. It would be a matter for consideration in Committee whether that ought to be so or not, but, as I understand it, the intention at the present time is to clothe one of the officers at present engaged in the Department with authority to act as Assistant Master in the absence, during vacation or by reason of ill-health, of the Master. Sub-section (3) says that, instead of requiring the same qualification as is required under Section 111 of the Lunacy Act, 1890—that is to say, that the person appointed should be a barrister of 10 years' standing—you may take either a barrister or solicitor of not less than 5 years' standing, or you may take some person already in the office who is qualified by experience and by intimate knowledge of the work that has been passing through his hands. Those are the two alternatives. In some cases it may be very hard to exclude the man who has had experience and bring in someone else who is new, but, on the other hand, it might be necessary to do so if he has not the necessary qualifications to enable him to fulfil the important duties entrusted to him.
Lord R. CECIL: May I ask whether the Government have any special person in view, or whether it is general?
Sir E. POLLOCK: There is no special person at all in view. It is merely a matter of the reorganisation of the office at large, and for the purpose, as I said when the Noble Lord was not in his place, of carrying out an economy which has been recommended over a very considerable period of time.
Sir F. BANBURY: Does it reduce the qualifications? At present, as I understand, a second Master, if appointed, would have to be a barrister of 10 years' standing, but under this proposal you can have one of five years' standing.
Mr. RENDALL: Of no standing.
Sir E. POLLOK: Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will do me the honour of reading the Bill. May I read the first three lines of it with him?
"Instead of two Master in Lunacy there shall be a single Master in Lunacy who shall be assisted by one of his officers and who shall be termed the Assistant Master in Lunacy."
Therefore, it is possible to put in some person who does not hold the high qualification of being a barrister of not less than 10 years' standing, and to clothe one of the existing officers with the nominal title of Assistant Master in order to carry out the duties. That is the scheme of the Bill, and that is the scheme under which it is hoped that an economy will be effected.

CANALS (CONTINUANCE OF CHARGING POWERS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It may be convenient if I say in a few-words what is the history of the charging powers of canals which it is proposed to extend for 12 months. The canals were taken possession of by the Government in the following way. Firstly, as to 17 canals which were railway-owned, they came into the possession of the Government at the outbreak of war, when the railways were taken over under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871. In 1917, 32 other canals were taken possession of under the provisions of Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act. Those provisions gave no power to deal with charges, and agreements were made with the individual canals to guarantee them an income which was equivalent to their 1913 income. The result of those agreements was a direct loss to the State in some 3½ years, up to the end of control, of a little over £4,000,000.
When my right hon. Friend Sir Eric Geddes became Minister of Transport, in accordance with his policy to make undertakings self-supporting as far as he was

2085
able, he terminated these agreements. The canals then asked that they might be taken possession of under the provisions of Section 3 of the Ministry of Transport Act, and they were so taken possession of. Under that Section the Minister had power to increase their charges from the statutory maxima which were in existence before the War. Investigation was made in every case, and the charges were increased, under the direction of the Minister, in, I think, some 54 cases. Those charges are now operative, and remain in force by virtue of the Ministry of Transport Act until the 15th February next. On that date the whole of these canals would revert to their pre-War charging powers, and I think I am right in saying that every one of them would be reduced to a state in which it would be impossible for them to balance their accounts. In the autumn of last year that position was represented to the Minister, and it was pointed out that, unless the Government gave some promise of introducing legislation, it would be necessary to introduce private Bills in the present Session of Parliament—those Bills would have been something like 40 or 50 in number—to continue the charging powers. In these circumstances, a public announcement was made that the Government would promote the Bill of which I now have, the honour to move the Second Beading. I cannot give the House any precise figures to show exactly what is the present income of the canals, but I can say that the loss which I have mentioned, and which fell upon the State under the old agreements, would still accrue, because the tonnage has fallen since the year 1920, which in eight months showed a deficiency on revenue account of £1,800,000. That was in respect of a tonnage of, in round figures, 14,250,000 tons. In the year 1921, however——
Sir D. MACLEAN: Why do you take that period?
Mr. NEAL: Because control ended in August, 1920. As I have said, the tonnage in 1920 was, in round figures, 14,250,000 tons, and in 1921 it had fallen to 10,250,000 tons—again in round figures—showing therefore, a decrease of some 4,000,000 tons, or a percentage decrease of 28 per cent. It therefore seems to be essential to continue the charging powers of the canals for some little time further. As to what the future may be I hesitate to
2086
say. The whole question of the canals is one of the most difficult problems with which we have to deal, and we are very much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham (Mr. N. Chamberlain) for presiding over a Committee which is considering that very troublesome question. It may well be that the period which we are now suggesting, namely, one year, may not turn out to he quite sufficient. In fact, representations have been made to the Government by the Canal Association asking that this period be increased by another year. That is a matter with which, I think, it would be most convenient to deal on the Committee stage, and, if that concession were to be made by the Committee, I should myself think that it ought to be accompanied by some power of revision vested, upon due inquiry, in the Ministry. In these circumstances, I hope the House may see its way to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
Sir D. MACLEAN: It will be well if the House will take careful notice of Clause 1 of this Bill, which refers to Section 3 (1, e) of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. The opening words of Subsection (1) of Section 3 of that Act are the governing words, and are as follows:
"With a view to affording time for the consideration and formulation of the policy to be pursued as to the future position of undertakings to which this Section applies, the following provisions shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, have effect …."
The special reason for bringing in this Bill is that of charging powers. I understand that the policy has not yet been determined, but is still the subject of inquiry by a Committee. Is that so?
Mr. NEAL Mr. NEAL indicated assent.
Sir D. MACLEAN: And I understand that meanwhile it is desired to continue those charging powers. The commercial community at present is suffering acutely from the heavy transport charges levied by railway companies and all other undertakings which operate under grants of monopoly powers by Parliament, and therefore the House ought to be jealous of every Measure which is brought before it for further extending the powers already given by Statute. I observe that the hon. Gentleman states that the traffic fell in one year from 14,000,000 tons to

2087
10,000,000 tons. Why was that? It was a year of very good trade—1920.
Mr. NEAL: No, 1921.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I should suggest that while there was a diminution of trade one of the reasons the traffic fell off was the high charges levied by the canal system.
Sir F. BANBURY: It was because the railway companies carried the traffic so well.
7.0 P.M.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not expect any enthusiastic support for my point of view from the right hon. Baronet on this occasion at any rate, because the attitude of the railway companies to canals in this country has not tended to the general lowering of the freightage and transport charges of this country. I think that is an observation that will carry a large amount of assent. The most important canals which came under the control of the railway companies have had as much traffic taken from them to the railways as possible, so depriving the traders of this country of a most useful means of transport.
Sir F. BANBURY: That is quite a mistake.
Sir D. MACLEAN: The right hon. Baronet will no doubt hold that view for the rest of his natural life.
Sir F. BANBURY: I will.
Sir D. MACLEAN: What I would like to know is when the hon. Gentleman anticipates that the Committee will lay before the House their Report, so that we shall have the occasion for considering what the policy recommended to the Government may be with regard to the expansion of the waterways of this country. I anticipate that this will be an almost hardy annual or bi-annual, and that every time they will come for further extensions of the powers to levy these largely increased rates. I hope the House will seize every opportunity carefully to examine any proposals made by the Ministry of Transport or by the Board of Trade, as I hope it very soon will be, for the extension of these powers. The whole natural tendency of monopoly associations is, of course, to retain all the
2088
powers of charging, and of increased charging, that they at present possess. Take the increased charges at the docks of this country. There is not the slightest doubt that they are throttling business in a way which cannot go on very much longer without doing even more serious harm than has already been occasioned to it. I hope when this Bill goes to Committee a further, and, indeed, meticulous, inquiry will be made on these points, to which I hope an answer will be forthcoming before the Debate concludes.
Major BARNES: There may be some very good reason why this particular Bill should be passed, but I dislike most intensely the principle embodied in it, which is continuing and leaving the power of determining what charges shall be remedied by great companies, or small companies for that matter, in the hands of a Department. We have practically a whole round of these things now. We have a sort of system of indirect taxation that is clean outside the control of this House. This House has passed Bills dealing with the charges for water, charges for gas, charges for railway transport. Here we are dealing with one of the charges for canal transport, all these things are taken outside the purview of Parliament, and put into the hands of somebody appointed by the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Transport who, by the application of his judgment, is to determine what the public should pay. The Minister who introduced this Bill has made the point, which is of some substance and weight, that if we do not pass this Bill, it means that in a year's time we shall have about 50 private Bills coming before the House in respect of these different canals. There is something very plausible, on the face of it, in the idea of saving that sort of expense and the amount of time given to the consideration of these Bills, but I do think the time will very shortly arrive when we shall have to consider in this country whether we are not losing, on the whole, more than we gain by taking out of the purview of Parliament a great many questions that used to come before Parliamentary Committees. I have no doubt that in these private inquiries the best is done, but the fact remains that you do not get the publicity and the public interest, nor do you give the chances to the persons who suffer by high charges to put their case before a

2089
Department that they do get when the matter comes before a Committee of this House.
We are asked in this Bill to continue the power which the Ministry of Transport have of fixing the charges for transport by canals. That may be inevitable. I do not propose to oppose the passage of this Bill, but I do want to take this opportunity of pointing out how serious a matter these transport charges are, and how important a matter it is that we shall, as soon as possible, get some competition in the matter. What is the position at the present time? It is that the charges for transport by rail are under the control of the Rates Advisory Committee, which is linked up with the Ministry of Transport. The charges for transport by water along these canals is under the control of the Ministry of Transport, and it is very, very difficult to believe that there is any element of competition entering into these different forms of transport. We shall never, I think, get to a satisfactory economic position in this country until we get, in some shape or form, real live, active, vigorous, competition between the different forms of carrying goods. While, therefore, I do not propose to offer any opposition to the passage of this Bill through its Second Reading, when it does come to pass the Committee Stage I think we shall be entitled to give very careful consideration to the provisions embodied in it.
Mr. NEAL: Perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words in reply to what has been said by my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) and by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Barnes). I do not quite agree with my right hon. Friend as to the meaning of Section 3 of the Ministry of Transport Act. The charges were continued for 18 months beyond Control in the hope that within that period conditions might have become more stable than they have become, and it might have been found possible to know what was the proper basis of charge for the future. I do not think anybody will suggest that we have reached that period of stability at the present time, that we are likely to do so in the next 12 months, or even in the further period that my right hon. Friend indicates. However that may be, it does seem necessary to avoid flooding the House with
2090
Private Bill legislation, with a great waste of money. I do not quite know the alternative that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but I would like to reassure him by saying that as the Bill stands at present the Ministry of Transport has no control whatever over the charges. I am not quite sure that on further consideration the Minister might not desire to have that power so that he might reduce the charges as the fall in costs make it advisable so to do. At present it is open to the canal com panies, none of which are in a prosperous state, to reduce their charges, but as the law stands, and unless the Bill is amended, there would be no compulsory power in any Government Department
Lord R. CECIL: Do I understand that under the present law the Ministry of Transport merely fixes the maximum, that they do not compel the canals to charge up to that price, and that that is a matter for the canal companies?
Mr. NEAL: In substance the Noble Lord is right, but not quite in detail. The charges in operation on the date when control ceased remain operative as voluntary maxima. The companies may charge such lower sum as competition or other circumstances may make them think it wise to do.
Lord R. CECIL: What I wanted to know was whether the effect of this Bill will be to compel the canal companies to keep up their charges. Many of us are very anxious that nothing should be done to injure the canal interests.
Mr. NEAL: That is not the effect.

AIR MINISTRY (KENLEY COMMON ACQUISITION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Captain Guest.]
Mr. HOGGE: Before the House is asked to agree to this Bill, surely the Minister is going to explain what it is about.
The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The object of this small Measure is to obtain Parliamentary sanction to a voluntary agreement arrived al between the Ministry and the Corporation of the City of London. The agreement is an exchange of certain lands, and the obtaining from Parliament of a small sum of money to put the exchanged land, for the benefit of the public, into a condition suitable for recreation. The terms of the agreement are set out in the schedule, to the Bill. The necessity for the Kenley aerodrome to the Ministry can be very shortly described to the House. It will be remembered that during the War it was used as the chief aerodrome for the defence of London, and it is very desirable from our point of view-that we should be able to retain it. The second reason is that nearly £300,000 was spent during the War on the erection of hangars, and barracks on land adjoining Kenley Common. The third reason is that experience has shown that it is almost the only practicable land close to London free of fog, a very important consideration for the purposes of aviation. Also, it is capable of expansion should this at any time become necessary.
The public interests, which, of course, are the interests with which the House is most concerned, have been fully safeguarded. In our agreement with the City of London Corporation, we are acquiring 60 acres of land adjoining the 50 acres we are asking them to sell to us. Any views about open spaces being restricted by this transfer can be dispelled at once by the following facts. Instead of only 50 acres of open space being open to the public, there will be the 60 acres, and on public holidays the 50 acres in addition, making 110 acres in all. The Ministry are asking the House for £2,000 to prepare this new exchanged land and to make it suitable for purposes of public recreation. For these purposes it will be necessary for the House to grant us a money resolution. We are also giving to the public the free admission to the land they are surrendering on all public holidays, and we further undertake at no time to put any buildings on this land. Lastly, it will not be used for civil] aviation, and should it not be necessary for military purposes, it will revert to the Corporation of the City of London for the purposes of common use. The price which
2092
we are paying for the exchange is £7,000. This the House has already sanctioned when we passed the estimate a couple of months ago. The only other item of expenditure is £500 to cover legal expenses and small items of compensation which may be necessary. I hope that with this explanation the House will give us the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Is this aerodrome going to be used for civil aviation purposes at all?
Captain GUEST: No, I explained that it would not.
Mr. MOSLEY: There is one question I should like to address to the right hon. Gentleman. This Measure entails an expenditure of £7,000. Are we really to understand that there is no aerodrome, a relic of the War, available anywhere in the vicinity of London that would be suitable for the purpose which he has in view? It does impress me as an extraordinary procedure to embark upon a new aerodrome when we must have scores of aerodromes in the country which can be put in a condition of repair for practically no expenditure at all. Does the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this is the only aerodrome which can possibly serve the purpose he has in view?
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I notice in the second Clause of this Bill that it is proposed to give rights to stop up and divert any private road or footpath. Does that mean a private footpath or a public footpath? As the Bill is drafted, it is a little doubtful which is meant. If it is proposed to stop up a public footpath, it very likely may be necessary to provide— I cannot tell without reference to the locality—but I imagine the Government will take care that, as far as possible, some other footpath will be given which will be serviceable to the public. That is usually necessary in such cases. As the Clause is drafted, it appears to give unlimited power to the President of the Air Council. That would be a new departure in legislation of this kind, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that point has been considered?
Captain GUEST: I will try to answer the two questions which have been put to me. So far as the selection of this ground as a permanent aerodrome for the defence of London is concerned, I am advised by

2093
my Department that there is no other ground so suitable that can remain the permanent central flying ground for the defence of the city. The reasons I have given have been supplied to me, and I have every reason to believe that they are unanswerable. It must not be forgotten in this connection that a very big sum of money has been spent on the very edge of this ground. Certainly no other ground near London has anything like the accommodation which those buildings provide us, nor would it house anything like so many men or machines. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) must take it from me that so far as that point is concerned, the arguments are overwhelming.
The question asked by my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) involves a very important and at the same time technical point. It is very difficult for me to answer it at a moment's notice for fear of being misleading. I can only imagine that the Ministry would have to protect themselves from the risk of any accident occurring on the aerodrome to anybody who might be on the land when an aeroplane landed or fell. It may be that those powers are asked for purely as a release from liability.
Lord R. CECIL: I did not ask as to the powers, which are quite evidently necessary in a case of this kind, but whether the usual provision is going to be made for another footpath or public road or right-of-way where one has been taken away. So far as it can be done—it may not always be possible—it is usual, when any semi-public enterprise takes power to stop up a footpath, that they should be required to provide another footpath to serve the purposes of that which has been closed. There does not appear to be any provision of that kind in the Bill, and that is why I put the question.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill be committed to Select Committee of Seven Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection."—[Captain Guest.]
Lord R. CECIL: I should like to know whether any interests that may be affected will be entitled to appear by witnesses and counsel before the Committee?
2094
This is evidently a matter which affects private interests, and therefore there ought to be power provided by which anyone can appear.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is covered by the next part of the Resolution.
Ordered, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Four be the quorum.—[Captain Guest.]

OXFORD AND ST. ALBANS WINE PRIVILEGES (ABOLITION) [MONEY].
Considered in Committee.
[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to abolish certain rights and privileges of the City of Oxford and of the City of St. Albans in connection with the sale of wine and the granting of licences there for and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise, in connection with the abolition of rights and privileges under the said Act,—

(a) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to the Corporation of the City of Oxford of the sum of three thousand two hundred pounds, together with the amount of any costs which may appear to the Treasury to have been properly incurred by the Corporation in connection with the said abolition; and

(b) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to the Corporation of the City of St. Albans of the sum of one thousand two hundred pounds."

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The Resolution which it is my duty to propose to the Committee is a Money Resolu-

2095
tion of a familiar type, to lead to a Bill which it will be equally my duty to introduce to the House at a later date should this Resolution be accepted. The necessity for the Money Resolution is due to the circumstance that the Bill will involve the issue of a small sum out of the public funds. The purpose of the Bill is to carry out an agreement made between the Treasury and the Corporations of Oxford and St. Albans, under which those two Corporations will part to the Treasury with some ancient rights which they hold to grant wine licences within their boroughs and to receive certain fees in respect of their rights. The history of these rights is a very long and ancient one. At Oxford the rights have the following history. They were originally the rights of the University, starting from the time of King Edward III. In later times, in 1888, the University parted with those rights to the Corporation of Oxford. In 1890 the agreement by which the University parted with its rights for the sale of wine licences to the Corporation of Oxford was confirmed by Statute. At St. Albans the exclusive rights of the Corporation to grant these licences date back to the days of Queen Elizabeth, when a concession to the municipality was conferred on the borough in order to provide a salary of 4 marks to the headmaster of the local grammar school, a remuneration which I am glad to say has long since ceased to be paid.
This Measure is an agreed one. In fact, it was undertaken originally on the motion of the Corporation of St. Albans, who themselves approached the Government with a proposal that they should part with their rights. Therefore, we approached the Corporation of Oxford, and they agreed to a similar transfer. This Measure fulfils the admirable purpose of obtaining a reasonable unity of the licensing laws and of avoiding all the trouble and confusion to the local licensees and the licensing authorities which arises by these concessions. There is a very practical purpose to be achieved in that respect, and great convenience and more efficient administration of the licensing law. As regards the finance of the scheme, the income derived by the Corporation of Oxford has been, in the last year for which I have figures available, £139, and in respect of that we propose to pay £3,200 for the purchase of the
2096
licensing rights. At St. Albans, the income for the last year available was round about £63. For that we propose to pay £1,200. In both cases we shall bear the cost of this legislation necessary for the transfer. Finally, one word about procedure. This Bill is a hybrid Bill, which means that after the Second Reading, if the House grants it, the Measure will go to a private Committee, where all particular interests will have an opportunity of being heard. It is not anticipated that there will be any opposition. However, as it involves a charge, it will come down here to a Committee of the Whole House. Therefore there will be quite adequate opportunities for avoiding any dangerous and hasty legislation in this valuable measure of reform.
Mr. MOSLEY: It seems curious that we should select the period of the present financial stringency to interfere, at a certain expense to ourselves, with an arrangement which has proved satisfactory, in one case since the days of Edward III, and in the other case since the days of Elizabeth. If this arrangement has subsisted during all this length of time, why should we spend over £4,000 of the State's money in the acquisition of rights which are not really in any way of very material use to the State or even necessary to the working of our licensing system? In addition, the hon. Gentleman seems to be getting a very low rate of interest for the money which he is investing. He is buying the right of the Oxford Corporation for a sum of over £3,000, and it only provides an income of some £139 per year. As yet another instance of State enterprise in a business sphere, this is not a very happy one. It may sound trivial to take exception to a Measure of this kind, but it is by cheeseparing and the saving of candle ends that our financial position can very largely be remedied. Savings of this kind, in their cumulative effect, amount up to a very considerable sum, and until the Treasury revert to the sound old Gladstonian position of weighing every penny of expenditure and examining with meticulous care all proposals, even of such a small nature as this, we shall not restore our finances to a proper basis. I greatly deplore that the hon. Gentleman should select such a moment as this to invest nearly £5,000 of the public

2097
money in a concern which is in no way relevant to the conduct of the licensing laws.
Mr. RENDALL: Will the licence duties under the control of the local authorities produce an annual sum greater than the loss of interest on the capital sum which you are giving away?
Dr. MURRAY: I want to utter a word of protest against this modern craze for uniformity. I like these little odds and ends and by a ways in the development of our history. I do not care what they pertain to. I like to imagine that the Isle of Man and other parts of the country with which I am acquainted where conventional laws are supposed to be in force, are different from the rest of Great Britain. I like these little bits of variety. I know my hon. and gallant Friend has imagination, and I am surprised that he should not exercise his historical imagination in leaving these things as they are. This custom that is to disappear began in the reign of Edward I., who was defeated at the Battle of Bannock-burn.
Mr. T. DAVIES (Cirencester): It was Edward II who was defeated at Ban-nockburn.
Dr. MURRAY: It was an Edward, anyhow. I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to reconsider this, and not make this country of ours one uniform colour, red, green, or any other colour. Let us have variety.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I must congratulate the last speaker on the sound Toryism he has displayed. I entirely agree with every word he has said. Here are perfectly harmless ancient privileges to two of our most august cities, and for no adequate purpose the House is asked to devote a capital sum of money to buying them out. Of course, it is a mere bagatelle—£2,000—tout they do absolutely no harm. They simply tend to preserve a historic sense and make local antiquarians discuss them and go into their various histories, and they have associations about them which it is to the interest of everyone to maintain if they possibly can. I hope that when the Second Reading of the Bill comes hon. Members will be here in rather larger numbers, and we shall get a good big
2098
vote against this entirely unnecessary legislation.
Lord R. CECIL: I, too, feel a little shocked at the reckless vandalism of this Measure. My hon. Friend, as far as I heard him, did not suggest any single reason of public importance why this Bill should be passed. What is the objection to the system that at present exists? He tells us that the City of St. Albans was anxious for an agreement of this kind. I have the greatest possible respect for the City of St. Albans, and I am quite sure they had an excellent reason, from their point of view, for doing it. Still, we do not know what it was. I do not know, and the right hon. Gentleman has not told us what it was. Surely before passing even this small Bill there ought to be some public reason given for it. Mere uniformity is not a reason. In that point I am entirely in agreement with the two last speakers. One of the great glories of this country is that we have preserved links with the past wherever we can. It has given to our people a historical imagination, a historical background, by which they consider all proposals which are made to them, and it is not a thing lightly to be diminished if we can avoid it. This is not a question of party Conservatism or Radicalism. It is a matter on which the greatest leaders of both parties have been agreed. No one was more tenacious of this kind of connection with the past than Mr. Gladstone, except perhaps the leaders of the Tory party of his day. Both sides believed in maintaining these ancient relics of the past unless they were doing harm, in which case, of course, they must be swept away, but, so far, we have not been given any reason to suppose that the ancient rights in this particular case are really a public disadvantage, and I hope before even the Debate on this stage concludes, my hon. and gallant Friend will explain what is the public reason for this Bill.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): We have had the Second Reading of the Bill. This is only a Money Resolution.
Lord R. CECIL: No, we have not had the Second Reading.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was passed on 4th April.
Lord R. CECIL: That makes it all the more reason why we should have an explanation now.
Mr. YOUNG: The amount of income which His Majesty's revenue will derive from the issue of these licences will undoubtedly be no less than those figures I mentioned which have been derived in the past by the corporations which have hitherto had licensing powers. Nay, more, it is a reasonable expectation that under the administration of the ordinary law the revenue may be increased. It has not shown very much tendency to increase in the past in comparison with other places, but it may be expected that it will increase and that we shall do better on our investments than the figures I referred to. As to the balance between the advantages of historical associations and the public welfare, I need not say the former also require some consideration, but it is a mistake to suppose that in the case of Oxford those rights which we are purchasing have any remote historical tradition behind them. The old historical rights of the University of Oxford were extinguished in year 1888, when the University itself murdered them. I did not amplify the matter in explaining this little Measure. Perhaps I took it too much for granted. Under the present state of affairs you have a double licensing authority in these cities. You have the ordinary licensing authority and this special
licensing authority exercised by the corporation in respect of wine licences. There is a very great advantage in observing the principle that there should be a single licensing authority for a city because there is a policy of licensing which ought to be uniform over the whole city and over all liquor matters connected with the city. I think that is a real reason of public policy, and I am sure hon. Members who are interested in licensing questions will agree that that is a practical reason of such importance from the point of view of administration that it should weigh against the rather less ponderable influences of historical tradition.
Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: The Financial Secretary is really going to pay £3,300 for a right which is only a concurrent right with someone else's right to issue wine licences for the City of Oxford. If the other authority choses to grab all the licences and issue them this right is not worth anything at all.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now going into the merits of the Bill, which will come before the Committee if this Resolution is passed.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 86.

Division No. 99.]

AYES.

[7.43 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Clough, Sir Robert

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Coats, Sir Stuart

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Armitage, Robert

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

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

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

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

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

Barlow, Sir Montague

Cralk, Rt. Hon. sir Henry

Hopkins, John W. W.

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

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Barnston, Major Harry

Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

Howard, Major S. G.

Barrand, A. R.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Hudson, R. M.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Edge, Captain Sir William

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Jameson, John Gordon

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Evans, Ernest

Jephcott, A. R.

Birchall, J. Dearman

Falcon, Captain Michael

Jesson, C.

Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

Farquharson, Major A. C.

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

Blair, Sir Reginald

Fell, Sir Arthur

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Forrest, Walter

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

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

Breese, Major Charles E.

Frece, Sir Walter de

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

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lyle, C. E. Leonard

Briggs, Harold

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Gilbert, James Daniel

Macquisten, F. A.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Maddocks, Henry

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Carr, W. Theodore

Hailwood, Augustine

Martin, A. E.

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

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

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

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Middlebrook, Sir William

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hancock, John George

Molson, Major John Elsdale

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

Haslam, Lewis

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Morrison, Hugh

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Taylor, J.

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Neal, Arthur

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

Tickler, Thomas George

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Parker, James

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

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

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

Purchase, H. G.

Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

Worsfold, T. Cato

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Stanton, Charles Butt

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Rankin, Captain James Stuart

Steel, Major S. Strang

Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Rendall, Athelstan

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Sturrock, J. Leng

Richardson, Lt Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

Atkey. A. R.

Grundy, T. W.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

Rae, H. Norman

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hallas, Eldred

Robertson, John

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Halls, Walter

Rodger, A. K.

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

Hartshorn, Vernon

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Bromfield, William

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Sitch, Charles H.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Cairns, John

Hirst, G. H.

Spencer, George A.

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Sutton, John Edward

Casey, T. W.

Hogge, James Myles

Swan, J. E.

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

Holmes, J. Stanley

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

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hurd, Percy A.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Ccwan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Irving, Dan

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Waterson, A. E.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Johnstone, Joseph

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

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

Wignall, James

Devlin, Joseph

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E)

Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Kennedy, Thomas

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

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Lort-Williams, J.

Windsor, Viscount

Finney, Samuel

Lunn, William

Wise, Frederick

Foot, Isaac

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

Galbraith, Samuel

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

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Gillis, William

Mosley, Oswald

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Myers, Thomas

Mr. Ormsby Gore and Dr. Murray.

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

JURIES BILL [Lords].
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Alteration of Method of Preparing Jurors' Book.)
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Section, it shall be the duty of every registration officer within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, in making out in pursuance of that Act the electors' lists for the autumn register for any year, to mark in the prescribed manner the names of such of the persons included in the lists as are qualified and liable to serve as jurors and the names of such of the persons so qualified and liable as are qualified to serve as special jurors.
(6) Where the claim of any person not to be marked as a juror or as a special juror in any electors' lists has been allowed by the registration officer or a court of summary jurisdiction, the registration officer shall, if he proposes to mark that person as a juror or as a special juror in any subsequent electors' lists, give to him notice of his intention so to do not less than fourteen days before the publication of the electors' lists:
Provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply in relation to the registration officer of a registration area other than the area in which the claim was made or in any case where the person whose claim was allowed has subsequently changed his place of residence.
Mr. HAILWOOD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
"Provided that the registration officer shall not mark the names of nuns nor the name of any woman living in religious congregation, but shall treat such name as though it were exempted under the Schedule

2103
to the Juries Act of 1870, similar to the manner that certain men are exempted."
I have no doubt that it must come as a great shock to many people to know that nuns are liable to serve on juries, and the probable cause of that shock is that they may never have heard of such an occurrence. Consequently, there is some doubt in their mind as to whether nuns are liable for jury service. That liability came in consequence of the Sex Disqualification Removal Act, 1919. Prior to that Act women were not called upon to serve on a jury. Since that time women have been liable for service on juries, just as women are qualified to become Members of Parliament, magistrates, etc. Under the Act of 1870, and under the former Act of 1825, there was a very comprehensive list of individuals who were exempt from serving upon any kind of jury. The whole of the exemptions on that list were male exemptions, for the simple reason that in 1825, and also in 1870, only the male section of the population had the vote. Therefore, it was only necessary to exclude certain male members of the population from serving on juries.
I would like to point out how comprehensive is that list of exemptions. It comprises Peers, Members of Parliament, magistrates, officers of His Majesty's household, barristers at law, sergeants, certificated conveyancers and special pleaders, attorneys, solicitors, and proctors, and their managing clerks, and notaries public, officers of the Courts of law and equity, and of the Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts, including the Court of Probate and Divorce, clerks of the peace, and their deputies if actually exercising the duties of their respective offices, coroners, gaolers, and keepers of houses of correction, and all subordinate officers of the same, keepers in public lunatic asylums, judges, clergymen, Roman Catholic priests, ministers, of any congregation of Protestants, Dissenters, and of Jews. The list is very comprehensive. If women in those days had been liable to service on juries by reason of possessing the vote, it is certain that certain classes of women would have been exempted, just as certain men are exempted by the Act of 1870. Certain women are to-day exempted from service on a jury if they hold an office similar to that which was held by these exempted men in the days when the Jury Act was passed. A
2104
woman Member of Parliament is exempt, also a woman magistrate, a woman doctor, and a woman barrister. My only plea is that the Sex Disqualification Removal Act, 1919, ought to have been comprehensive enough to include similar cases amongst women so that there should be no difference whatever between the status of men and the status of women with regard to service on juries.
I plead the case of the nuns because they hold a position in our social life similar to that held by clergymen, priests, or ministers of any religion. They devote themselves to religious work, pure and simple, or to charitable work, and if a man is exempt on those grounds, surely a women ought to be exempt on the same grounds. These women devote themselves entirely to this class of work. Some of them look after the sick, others look after the poor, and others devote themselves to perpetual silence and perpetual prayer. In my Amendment I am not picking out any particular religion. I have worded it comprehensively enough in order that these women, no matter what religion they profess, if they devote themselves to religious work, may be exempt from serving on a jury. Twelve months ago, on the 25th May, 1921, I asked a question in the House with regard to this subject. I asked the Attorney-General whether he would take steps to amend the Sex Disqualification Removal Act, 1919, so as to exempt nuns and other congregations of women living in religious communities from liability to service on juries, seeing that the Schedule of the Juries Act, 1870, exempts peers, Members of Parliament, judges, clergymen, priests and others from such service. The Home Secretary replied:
"My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The claim of nuns to be exempted from jury service should, in my opinion, be given favourable consideration whenever there is time for legislation on the subject, but I am afraid that I do not see my way to introduce a Bill for that purpose at the present time."
It was undoubtedly a very busy Session in 1921, and it was very difficult to get legislation introduced which would exempt nuns from service. Since that question was asked, nuns up and down the country in various convents have been annoyed frequently by being summoned to serve on juries, and very great difficulty has been experienced in getting them released from this duty, so much so that

2105
on the day that I asked my question, the secretary of the Catholic Union of Great Britain wrote to the Lord Chief Justice on the matter. The Lord Chief Justice's reply was as follows:
"The Lord Chief Justice has directed me to reply to your letter of yesterday respecting the attendance of a sister belonging to the Community of the Convent in Little England Lane. The Lord Chief Justice regrets that he has no power to release the sister from attendance, but it is open to her to try to convince the officer of the Court, who is responsible, that sufficient members of the jury are available and that there is some sufficient reason why she should be excused. The persons summoned must attend to obtain their release or a medical certificate must be sent."
8.0 P.M.
Mr. Franey, who is a barrister of Lincoln's Inn, got into communication with the office of the Master of the Crown, and he was unable to get this nun released. The Master of the Crown Office laid down that if the Lord Chief Justice could not exempt a nun they were unable to exempt her, and the only ground was a medical certificate. Fortunately in this case it was possible to get a medical certificate, and the nun was exempted from service. But this process has had to be followed on all these other occasions. It has been asked in this House whether a nun really has ever served on a jury. No nun, to my knowledge, has ever actually served on a jury, but it imposes trouble on them, and those who are working for them in order that they may not have to serve. This is the opportunity for settling the matter. A Juries Bill has been introduced into the House of Lords and brought down here. Before it received its Second Reading, I communicated with the Home Secretary and asked him if he would kindly receive a deputation consisting of two other Members and myself in order that this point might be considered. The two other Members were the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Major Hennessy) and the hon. Baronet the Member for East Surrey (Sir Stuart Coats). The Home Secretary replied that there was no possibility of amending the Bill, and that no useful purpose would be served by seeing myself and the other hon. Members.
It was the same Home Secretary who gave me the very sympathetic reply 12 months ago. I have the honour of representing a constituency in Manchester,
2106
which is part of Lancashire. We are sometimes looked down upon for our want of tact, but we in Lancashire look upon this want of tact as another way of saying that we mean what we say. When I got my answer from the Home Secretary last year, I took it that he meant what he said, and that on the first favourable opportunity he would give consideration to this matter. The Juries Bill is, I think, such an opportunity. When a Minister of the Crown is approached by Members of this House, the least he might do is to hear what they have to say. It may be annoying sometimes to have deputations from outside waiting on Ministers, but when three Members of this House, three faithful supporters of the Government, wish to put forward views, they should be heard. I am reminded of Dumas' great novel, the "Three Musketeers." I do not know that the Queen of France in those days was more faithfully served by Athos, Porthos and D'Artagnan than the Government of the day has been served by these three hon. Members, and I think that on an occasion of that sort, the least the Home Secretary could do would be to hear what we have to say. I feel it somewhat of a slight to have been turned down without being heard.
On the Second Reading of this Bill in this House the Home Secretary did not even deign to make a reply, but took the Bill as an agreed Measure. Since then it has been in Committee and again I moved an Amendment. The attitude which the Home Secretary has taken up is that if the door be opened on an occasion of this sort for one particular class of the community, he might have to grant similar concessions to other classes of the community. That is no argument. If any class of the community has a good case, that case should be heard. If the Government through their Minister say that they are favourably disposed, and there is no opposition to a proposal, it is futile to say that because other people may make a similar demand, therefore it has got to be turned down. I do not understand by what process of logic the Home Secretary puts forward reasoning of that sort. These other claims may be good or bad. If they are good they should be granted, and if they are bad, turned down. I am not asking for a special favour, but in common honesty something ought to be granted to nuns

2107
because of the position which they hold and any women holding similar positions—because virtually they are ministers of religion just as much as male members of the community—they should be granted exemption.
Mr. DOYLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Amendment was discussed exhaustively in Committee. Owing to reasons into which I need not enter, a Division was not taken upon it, but the Home Secretary would probably agree that if a Division had been taken on that occasion an Amendment probably would have been carried. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why was not a Division taken?"] The reason was that at that particular moment towards the end of the business it was found that there were only 19 Members, present, and if a Division had been taken it would have rendered abortive all the proceedings which had taken place previously, and the work would have had to be done over again. In response to an appeal made by the Chairman and others, those who are interested in the Amendment did not pursue it, and agreed to bring it forward on the Report stage. On that occasion my right hon. Friend resisted the Amendment, and based his resistance upon two main points. The first was that there was not the remote possibility of a nun ever being asked to serve on a jury. The other was that it opened the door to other claims, and the granting of this claim would make it very difficult to resist those claims. In regard to the first objection, if my right hon. Friend becomes convinced that it was not operative, and that he was misinformed, his principal objection probably would be removed.
I have here a number of original letters written to the secretary of the association referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ardwick Division (Mr. Hailwood) by professed nuns who were called upon to serve, and who were perturbed and harrassed in their cloisters by demands for service. I ask my right hon. Friend to take advantage of the fact that there are these letters. I could get many more if necessary. They complain grievously of the hardship and, from the point of view of the writers, of the injustice of being asked to serve on juries. I will not detain the House by reading those letters, but
2108
they are genuine and very strong. Clause (3) of the Bill purports to give the sheriff power to excuse a person from attending on a summons when that person shows good reason for being excused attendance on a jury. But there is nothing in the Bill which defines what may be a good reason, which will therefore have to be gathered from the pre-existing law. The fact of being a nun is not of itself a good reason for being excused, and the Section goes on to provide
"(a) nothing in this Section shall affect the power of the Court or a judge to excuse any person from attending on a jury."
These words, no doubt, are intended to prevent powers which exist at present from being diminished, but they equally prevent the reading into the Section of any extension of powers. Therefore, a judge is still to be without power to excuse a nun as such. My hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick dealt at length with the points which I intended to make with regard to applications that have been made to the High Court and Lord Chief Justice. Therefore I hope that what I have said will convince my right hon. Friend that, at any rate, the first part of his objection falls to the ground. With regard to the second objection—the opening of the door to other sections of society—it is plain that nuns as such stand in a category by themselves. My right hon. Friend instanced chief constables——
Mr. SHORTT: You are referring to a private conversation.
Mr. DOYLE: I beg your pardon. It occurred in Committee.
Mr. SHORTT: No.
Mr. DOYLE: I think that the OFFICIAL REPORT will show that my right hon. Friend in his speech, in reply to my hon. Friend, did make use of these words. If that is not so, I apologise. People who claim exemption are not confined to one religion. These are ladies who have cut themselves off from the world and all its associations and interests and have voluntarily decided to go into a convent or nunnery and to devote themselves, from their point of view, at any rate, to work which is a more essential service than anything outside. They consist mainly of three classes. First of all there are the nuns who devote themselves chiefly to educational work. That work is well known and appreciated by the general

2109
community and by the Board of Education. The second class is the class that works in the under-world, in the slums, helping the poor and the needy. They are the Lazaruses who pick up the crumbs falling from the rich man's table, and they minister to the poor and suffering. Every Member of this House will know and recognise the work that is performed in this country by that sisterhood. They devote themselves to this work in spite of every inconvenience and hardship, denying themselves not merely of luxury but of the ordinary pleasures of life, in order to alleviate misfortune and suffering. There is the third class, those who voluntarily go into what are called the enclosed orders.
I remember about 30 years ago there was an old friend of mine who had a daughter, young, beautiful, talented, and a delight to her parents and friends. Much to the regret of her parents she decided to take the veil and to go into an enclosed order. The Home Secretary does not need to be told that that means that after due deliberation a young person taking such a step knows full well that from the moment she enters the cloisters she will never come out again alive. I appeal to my right hon. Friend and to the House to recognise, not merely what an absurd thing it would be, but what an appalling catastrophe and outrage on common sense and decency it would be, if one of these holy women was obliged to break her vows, to come out into the world, to go into a Court and to attend and sit in a jury box with others, and probably to listen to sordid and filthy details until her ears were polluted by things of which she had not the smallest conception. If this Amendment rested merely on the ground of the enclosed orders, that ought to be sufficient to make my right hon. Friend accept it. But, after all, suppose that my right hon. Friend persists in his objection and suppose the law is carried out, and suppose nuns were forced to leave their cloisters and to attend on juries. What use would they be? What service would they do? They know nothing of the world and of the things that are happening, and from the point of view of service on a jury they would be worse than useless. I appeal to my right hon. Friend that, having learned something more of the feeling of Members of the House since the Amendment was
2110
moved, he should accede to what is the almost unanimous wish of Members of all sections. I invite his attention to the list of names appended to this Amendment. Those names represent High Church, Low Church, Broad Church, Nonconformity, Roman Catholics and Jews. As far as I know, in the course of discussion of the Amendment there was not a single Member who said that he would vote against it. I appeal to the Home Secretary to take his courage in both hands and voluntarily to do an act of justice, wisdom and common sense by accepting the Amendment.
Mr. SHORTT: As the House will recollect, this Bill was a very short Bill intended to make the compilation of the Jury Lists a much more economical matter than it is at present, and having regard to the state of business, it was absolutely essential that it should remain a small Bill, as far as possible an unopposed Bill, and that it should not have introduced into it great questions of a very controversial nature. I have had a great deal of correspondence and seen a great many people about jury exemptions, jury pay, and many other questions dealing with juries; and had I once consented to open the door to any of these questions, this Bill, from being a small Measure, would have become a very big and very controversial Measure. For that reason it was impossible for mo in any public way to accede to the request of my hon. Friends and to say publicly that I would accept an Amendment dealing with the exemption of any class, however negligible. From the jury point of view and from the point of view of their value in the Courts, I agree that nuns are purely negligible.
Had I excepted them I should have been inundated with all kinds of people, who are always pressing their claims for exemption. I do not mind telling the House quite frankly that I never had the faintest intention of defeating the purpose of this Amendment in the long run, but had I given way in Committee upstairs, or before that stage, I should, as I say, have been inundated by people, who would have said to me, "You told us that this was a small Measure into which big questions ought not to be introduced," and thus it would have become a controversial Measure, instead of being what it now is. I do not enter into the

2111
merits of the question at all. I do not think there can be very much doubt on that. I do not think any Member of the House considers that a nun from a convent would be a proper juror, or that she would be eligible for service as such. Coming to deal with the Amendment, I tried to see some of my hon. Friends responsible for it, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle (Mr. Doyle), and I think I have pointed out to him already what I propose and the way in which I propose it should be done. This Amendment, instead of being where it was originally put down—Clause 2, Sub-section (2)—has been transferred to Clause 1, Sub-section (2), and that makes a difference. As it read originally, it simply provided that the registration officer should put into the notice that he is obliged to publish on the church doors, and in other places, a statement of the law which was not the law. The Amendment would never save nuns from the legal liability to serve. It would only ensure the registration officer putting up notices that nuns were not to be summoned, although in fact under the law he would be bound to summon them. What I suggest to my hon. Friends is that in Clause 8, after Sub-section (2), the following words should be inserted:
"A woman who is a vowed member of a religious Order living in a Convent or other religious community, shall not be marked as a juror and shall not, although included in the jurors' book, be liable to serve on any jury."
I may also point out as regards the Amendment on the Paper, that it does not provide for a case where a nun has her name put on by mistake. If it is put on by mistake the sheriff is liable to summon her. My proposal will provide against that. I hope my hon. Friend will not press the last three lines of the present Amendment:
"but shall treat such name as though it were exempted under the Schedule to the Juries Act of 1870, similar to the manner that certain men are exempted."
I do not think those words do any good and they may lead to complications. I suggest that this Amendment should be withdrawn. What I suggest really carries out what is intended, but it should be moved when we come to deal with Clause 8.
Mr. HAILWOOD: The only point is as regards the word "vowed." Sometimes
2112
nuns are two or three years in a convent before they take vows, but I think that from the time they are admitted into the convent they should be exempted, even though they have not taken the vows.
Mr. ACLAND: Having listened to the whole Debate, I venture to suggest that, although very late in the day, the case of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment has at last been met by the Home Secretary, and it would be better for those interested to accede to his suggestion.
Mr. DEVLIN: I desire to express my sense of satisfaction that the Home Secretary has accepted the Amendment. I may point out to the Mover and Seconder that it is not always the most effective way of carrying a reform, to give unqualified support to the Government of the day. I take it that not only was the irresistible justice of their case a reason why the right hon. Gentleman conceded the demand made, but that another reason was because—uninvited by the Gentleman in charge of this matter—my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) and myself brought all the pressure that a somewhat violent though small opposition could bring to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman. We have a right to congratulate ourselves on the fact, considering that the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Amendment failed in Committee, where, above all places, they ought to have succeeded. In Committee they had an opportunity of addressing the jury. All one can address here are the absentees. When a Bill is before Committee, one great advantage is that one has all the people who are to give their judgment on it listening to the arguments advanced, and one can get an honest vote. Yet though they had an irresistible case, a case that could not be met unless by the concession which the right hon. Gentleman made, they did not press the matter successfully in Committee. I am quite surprised. I respectfully suggest to the Mover and Seconder that when they come to deal with a vital matter of this character, affecting the Catholic Church in these islands, they should at least consult all Catholic Members of the House.
Mr. DOYLE: And other Churches.
Mr. DEVLIN: Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones)

2113
nor myself were ever asked for our support or consulted on this matter, yet I venture to say, had it not been for the pressure we brought to bear added to the case that was made, it is very possible the right hon. Gentleman would never have made this concession at all. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will contradict it.
Mr. SHORTT: I will indeed.
Mr. DEVLIN: No, the right hon. Gentleman will not, because the hon. Member for Scotland Division and myself went to him about the matter, and he did not at all seem in a mood to accept the Amendment at that time and that is not very long ago. When he saw us here on the Benches and when he knew this matter would be fought with all the strength and violence of which we were capable, he came to the conclusion it was desirable from the Parliamentary point of view, to concede to people like our humble selves that which he would not concede to the lamblike followers of the Government. However, irrespective of who was responsible for the concession made, I am glad it has been made. When an appeal of this character was made by a number of ladies who have consecrated their lives to great, high, humanitarian and Christian causes; who have made such a splendid sacrifice as to give up everything sweet in life and dear to them, for the purpose of serving humanity, it would be a scandal to drag them out and compel them to perform the function of jurors. I therefore join in the congratulations which will be offered, I have no doubt, to the right hon. Gentleman for having accepted the Amendment.
Mr. HAILWOOD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, in order to move one later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Captain ELLIOT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), after the word "lists" ["publication of the electors lists"], to insert the words
"The registration officer shall also send a similar notice to any person whose name appears in the current dentists' register kept under the provisions of the Dentists Acts, 1878 and 1921, if he proposes to mark that person as a juror or as a special juror in any electors' lists."
The explanation of the Home Secretary on the previous Amendment makes it quite
2114
simple to understand the Government's point of view that they were unable to make concessions, even those that were eminently just and reasonable, for fear of opening the door to others which would not be so just and reasonable, but they are willing to make these concessions although at the last moment, and however we may agree or disagree with the policy of standing out against Amendments but allowing them at the last minute, if they are to be allowed we are willing to take them at whatever stage in the Bill the Home Secretary desires to admit them. Therefore, I have the greatest confidence in moving this small and very reasonable concession which is asked for in this Amendment. This is no question of an added exemption; there is no question of exempting any new class of persons in this Amendment. The right of dentists at present to be exempted from serving on juries is admitted, and it rests on the Dentists Act, 1878, which says, in Section 30:
"Every person registered under this Act shall be exempt from serving on all juries and inquests whatever,"
and goes on to say
"and the name of any registered person shall not be returned in any list of persons liable to serve in the Militia or in any such office as aforesaid"—
that is to say, as a juror. The point is therefore quite simple and practical. At present registered dentists are exempt by law from as long ago as 1878, not only from serving on juries, but—and this is the point which we wish to press—from appearing in jurors' lists. Now it is proposed under the present Bill, as far as we can read, that they should appear on the jurors' list, and then, if they so desire, claim to be removed from the list. We ask the very simple and reasonable privilege that the returning officer should notify anybody whose name appears on a registered list of dentists that he proposes to mark him as a juror, and thus give the dentist a chance to point out that he is exempted under the Act. The difficulty of a busy professional man keeping in touch with the lists and schedules of various kinds, the various Government publications, is almost insuperable, and the least that should be done is that, when a man who is already exempted by law, and has only to claim exemption to obtain it, is about to be placed on the jurors' book, from which there is no appeal, if his name once appears on it, until the

2115
next occasion for revising the book, he should be notified by the officials that his name is about to appear on this list, and that he must claim if he desires to obtain the exemption to which he is already by law entitled. Under this Bill, under Clause 2, if a man's name appears on the jurors' book, he must serve, notwithstanding any exemption which the law confers on him, and it is claimed—and I think rightly claimed—that the present Bill is an infringement of an already existing right, and we desire to make sure that this infringement does not take place. There is no reason for putting this class of busy professional men to the added worry and trouble of themselves keeping au fait with the interminable lists of Government publications which are continually being poured forth from the printing press, and that the onus should be placed on these men of claiming exemption is an infringement of their present right, which is that their names shall not appear on any lists.
Mr. RAFFAN: I bog to second the Amendment.
I hope, in view of the precedent afforded by the action of the Home Secretary on the previous Amendment, that he might perhaps shorten the proceedings by expressing his willingness on this occasion also to accept an Amendment which he could not do at an earlier stage, because, as he explained, he thought that if this action was taken he might be subjected to other claims. I have no doubt whatever that if we had had the intimation that he proposed to take the action he did on the previous Amendment, instead of proposing this Amendment we would have proposed an Amendment that dentists should be exempted from jury service. With no disrespect to the case put up by my hon. Friends on the previous Amendment, I think we might also have put forward an extremely strong case, because the, Dentists Act of 1878 states that a dentist will be entitled to exemption from jury service if he so desires. One may assume that a busy professional man would always desire to be exempted, and I think it might easily have been ascertained that that was the general desire of the profession, and it would have saved a good deal of cumbersome procedure and negotiation if that course had been taken.
2116
However, we have not put that forward, and, therefore, I must content myself with asking the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment we have proposed. After all, if the right hon. Gentleman has steeled his heart against any extension of exemption, this Bill ought not to be used to put any body of people, professional or otherwise, in a worse position than before. I am glad that, so far, the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me. What happens at present, as I understand, is that, before the list is made up, an intimation is conveyed to the dentist, and he has an opportunity of expressing his willingness or not to accept jury service. Under the Bill, that is not the position, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend has shown, Clause 2 gives an opportunity of over-riding the exemption which is given under the Act of 1878. All that we are asking my right hon. Friend to do is to say that the procedure, which, more or less, so far as it is possible to carry it out under the new procedure now existing, shall be continued, that a registration officer shall convey to a registered dentist the fact that he is about to make up the jury list, and that his name will go on automatically unless he objects. Under those circumstances, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accede to the Amendment.
Mr. SHORTT: I hope my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. It really is quite unnecessary, and it is putting a wholly unreasonable and unnecessary burden upon the registration officer. After all, this Bill does not make the position of the dentist one iota worse than it was before. As it is to-day the dentist, if he chooses, can be exempted from jury service. He is, in fact, exempted, because his own choice decides it; but there is no notice given him today that he may be put on the Jury List. It is perfectly true in some few cases the man who prepares the Jury List sends out notices for information to help him make up his list, but there is no notice at all in the sense of the notice referred to in Sub-section (6) of this Clause. What will be the result if the Bill stands as it is? The only list to which the dentist will have to look will be the first, and then if he is put down as a juror or special juror and he intimates that he does not desire to serve, from that time onwards, so long as he remains in the

2117
district, the registration officer then knows that this man is exempted by his own desire, and cannot put him on the Jury List again without sending him the notice provided for under the Sub-section. Therefore, it can only refer to new men coming into the area, and to put on the registration officer, in an area where there may not be a local directory or information, the burden of ascertaining whether any man who happens to come into his area is a registered dentist with out any real benefit to dentists as a whole, is to put on him a wholly unnecessary burden. I can assure the House that this Bill does not make the position of the dentist one iota worse, but it makes it better in this respect, that from the time he has intimated that he does not wish to serve, he is protected by notice, as he is not at present.
Mr. RAFFAN: May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman? If the dentist's attention be not drawn to the list, and he has made no objection, then Clause 2 overrides the privilege that he has at present, and he is then compelled to serve, although the Act of 1878 says he shall not be so compelled.
Mr. SHORTT: One must take the whole circumstances into account. I am not going to say anything about the fact of a man not taking the trouble to find out, but all he has got to do, under Clause 3, is to exercise the new power given under that Clause, and write to the Sheriff, "I am a dentist and an exempted man; therefore, I do not wish to serve on the jury to which I am summoned." I cannot imagine the Sheriff not writing back, Baying, "Certainly you are exempted." Really, the position is no worse.
Mr. RAFFAN: Oh, much.
Mr. SHORTT: If a dentist to-day does not take the trouble to intimate that he does not want to serve as a juror, he is bound to serve, just as under this Bill. It is no worse.
Captain ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman admits that, under the present Act, dentists do receive notification in certain areas.
Mr. SHORTT: No. What I said was that some of the people who prepare jury lists send out letters asking for information, and in that indirect way, no doubt,
2118
in some places they get that information; but there is no question of sending out notices.
Mr. ACLAND: I rather regret the line which the Home Secretary has thought it right to take. He has got to the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, and there would have been no danger of other classes coming in, if he had made this rather small concession.
Mr. SHORTT: That was not my ground.
Mr. ACLAND: That is the ground I am suggesting he might have taken. Last Session a Dentists Act was passed, which consolidates and defines the dentist's profession, and removes altogether the point the right hon. Gentleman made as to the difficulty of ascertaining who was or was not qualified. I have been spending all to-day trying dentists for things they ought not to have done, and I have lost my voice in the process. It is all in the endeavour to make into a real profession what ought to have been a profession long since—the honourable profession of dentistry. I regret that the Home Secretary has not been able to find any way of meeting the case put by my hon. Friends. I cannot regard the dentists' rights under Clause 3 as being worth very much, because under that you only refer to the power of a Court or judge to excuse any person attending on a jury, and the Court or judge, as one may see in many cases, may not unlikely take the view that once a name is on the list, though he has not had his attention called to the list—and people do not study lists of persons affixed to church doors or kept in public offices—the person summoned is bound to attend. I think it would have been more becoming on the part of the Minister in charge to recognise the considerable work which his colleague the Minister of Health has done in helping to pass the Bill which really does establish the profession and art and science of dentistry if he had tried to do what he could to meet this case.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Persons included in jurors' book liable to serve notwithstanding disqualification or right to exemption.)
(1) Every person whose name is included in the jurors' book as a juror or special juror

2119
shall be liable to serve as such, notwithstanding that he may have been entitled by reason of some disqualification or exemption to claim that he ought not to be marked in the electors' list as a juror or special juror:
Provided that nothing in the foregoing provision shall affect the right of any person to be excused from attendance on a jury on the ground of illness or, if a woman, for medical reasons.
Mr. SEDDON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
"or if on her having been summoned to serve on any jury she has, within twenty-four hours thereof, given written notice (which may be sent by post) to the sheriff or other officer so summoning her that she does not desire to serve on such jury."
In these modern days it might appear to some people a little reactionary to try to get women exemptions from duties which devolve upon women equally with men; but I am actuated in moving this Resolution by the fact that happily there are still many women in this country who prefer the sanctuary of their home to the excitement of public duty. Many of these, especially mothers of middle age, are brought into a new atmosphere outside their ordinary life, and if called upon to do this duty, it would not only rob them of the time in the house that should be devoted to household duties, but would inflict upon them an obligation that they feel unqualified to discharge. We know that many of the class to which I refer are highly sensitive. In their early days they never anticipated that they would be called upon to fulfil these public functions. The rising generation may seek to exercise the public functions and duties thrown upon them, but those who have not had that atmosphere in years gone by shrink from anything in the nature of publicity, and feel that this duty thrust upon them is irksome and painful in many cases. I think that by written notice that section should be relieved from the responsibility, and because I know a large number desire this concession, I move the Amendment.
Mr. R. McLAREN: I beg to second the Amendment.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. SHORTT: This Amendment raises the whole question of women serving upon juries, a far, far bigger question than ought to be raised in a Bill of this kind. It is true it only gives the woman
2120
the right to say that she does not desire to serve on any particular jury, but she may say that every time, and it raises the whole question. I ask my hon. Friend to consider how large an extension of the Bill the acceptance of the Amendment would involve, seeing it raises the whole woman's question as to whether the woman who is receiving the privilege of the vote should not equally accept the responsibility, and I am sure that the women themselves will not unanimously support my hon. Friend in his Amendment. The Amendment as drafted will not save women from any jury at all—absolutely none at the present time. Take the proviso. It reads this way:
"Provided that nothing in the foregoing provision shall affect the right of any person to be excused from attendance on a jury on the ground of illness"—
that right exists at the present time—
"or if a woman, for medical reasons"—
that exists at the present time. Then would follow the words of the Amendment. But the Amendment does not help the matter in the least. It does not give the woman the right. All the Amendment says is that this provision shall not affect such rights. But there are no such rights; so that even if the House accepted the Amendment it would not affect one iota the position of women in regard to their liability to serve on a jury. I therefore hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. SEDDON: After the explanation of my right hon. Friend, I do not think I can pursue the matter further, but I am very pleased to have had this opportunity of putting forward views on behalf of that section who do not want the privileges which have been thrust upon them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power of sheriff to excuse juror from attendance.)
If any person who has been summoned by the sheriff to attend on a jury shows in writing to the satisfaction of the sheriff that there is good reason why he should be excused from attending on that jury, it shall be lawful for the sheriff notwithstanding anything in the Juries Act, 1825, or any other Act, to excuse that person from so attending:
Provided that—
(b) if the court or judge so require, the sheriff shall produce to the court or judge all applications received by him from persons asking to be excused from attendance on any jury summoned for the trial of cases before that court or judge and any correspondence relating to any such applications, and shall where he has complied with any such application state to the court or judge his reasons for so doing.
Sir F. BLAKE: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), leave out the words
"if the court or judge so require."
The reason I move this manuscript Amendment is that the words of the Clause do not express the real state of affairs so far as the preparation of the jury list is concerned. If this was really done by the sheriff, or was done with the cognisance and under consultation with the sheriff, it would not be necessary to put down this Amendment. As a matter of fact anyone who has acquaintance with the courts and with the way these lists are prepared knows that the matter is left entirely in the hands of the under-sheriff. The high sheriff is nominally responsible, but as a matter of fact, in practice, he leaves the details—and this is one of them—entirely in the hands of the under-sheriff. This is a very big power to leave in the hands of the under-sheriff—that is the power to excuse jurors from attendance without giving any explanation unless he is called upon to do so. I do not want to suggest that the under-sheriff is likely to yield to temptation. Still one knows that a man in that position has his own friends. He has those who may come to him and want to get off, and may be it is a disagreeable duty to insist, and like the rest of us, he may want to oblige his friends if he can do so. For that reason I think it is desirable that he should be placed under a compulsion to produce to the court, if necessary, a list of those whom he has excused from attendance upon a jury. I think the officer should be compelled to justify in each case those who have been excused. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman it is desirable that in every case he should have to produce his list and give good reason why a person has been excused from attendance.
Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to second this Amendment, which I commend to the
2122
judgment of the House. For centuries jurors have been summoned to our courts, and the only method of obtaining exemption has been by an application to the judge in open court, or if the juror was ill and could not attend, he had to send a doctor's certificate, and that certificate had to be verified by an affidavit. Anybody who practises in the Law Courts knows that a very great number of applications are made by jurymen to escape from the duty of serving. The great change made by this Bill of taking away the careful decision of the judge upon open applications made in Court is being done away with, and the power is left to the sheriff to decide on a written application whether any juryman who has been summoned should be exempted. The words of the Section lay down the line of action to be adopted in arriving at a decision, because the sheriff has only to be satisfied that there is good reason why the juryman should be excused. Nowhere in the Bill is the term "good reason" explained.
It has been pointed out by the Mover of this Amendment that a sheriff does not mean the High Sheriff, but it means the Under-Sheriff, who is generally a solicitor of high standing practising in one of the chief towns of the country in an Assize Court, and if it is a Sessions Court he is the clerk of the peace. I suggest to the Home Secretary that anybody can appreciate the enormous pressure that will be put on the Under-Sheriff, who has to exercise this jurisdiction without publicity, by his friends and acquaintances. In this matter we ought to see that everybody does his duty as a juryman fairly and squarely, and is not let off except for good reasons and good cause, and in justice to the sheriff or clerk of the peace who arrives at these decisions they should not be subject to pressure which can be put upon them. I think it would be going a long way to obtain that object if this Amendment were accepted, because the result would be that both these officers who had to make these decisions would find it necessary to prepare for the judge a list of the names of the jurymen who have made applications to be exempted, setting out the cause for which each juryman had been excused.
Mr. SHORTT: I do not think that the omission of these words will do the Bill the slightest harm, and, on the other

2123
hand, I am not convinced that they will do much good or make much difference in the working of the Bill whether these words are in or not. No doubt some judges would take great care to scrutinise what the sheriff has done and some judges might not. This Amendment cannot do the Bill the slightest harm, and, if hon. Members do not object, I hope the House will accept it.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Power to make Orders in Council.)
(1) Provision may be made by Order in Council under this Act—
(e) for making such adaptations in any enactments as are necessary for giving full effect to- this Act.
Captain TUDOR-REES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, e), to insert a new paragraph—
"(f) for requiring that every juror on being empanelled shall take the oath prescribed in the Second Schedule hereto, and that any person who violates such oath shall, on conviction before a court of summary jurisdiction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds."
The object I have in view is to give the Home Secretary an opportunity of adopting the suggestion made by a learned judge not long ago. A few weeks ago in a notorious case an enterprising journalist managed to extract in the form of an interview some matter which was very interesting from the journalistic standpoint, but in my judgment an interview of that sort amounted to nothing short of a grave impropriety. It will be recollected that when the trial to which I have alluded was over, and the prisoner had been sentenced to death, this journalist interviewed the foreman of the jury and obtained intimate details of what transpired in the jury room while the jury were considering their finding. He went into such details as that they spent just three minutes in coming to a decision, and, with a certain amount of levity, indicated what their views were on certain matters relevant and irrelevant to the case. In the meantime, although they came to their decision in a few minutes, the foreman said, "Let us have a smoke," and for 45 minutes, while the unfortunate prisoner was awaiting the verdict of the jury to know whether he was to have or
2124
to lose his life, the jurymen smoked. I have no objection to jurymen or anyone else smoking for 45 minutes or 45 hours, but I strongly object to the public being informed, after a grave case of that sort, that the jury had conducted their proceedings in that manner. It will be within the knowledge of hon. Members that two very eminent judges in the Court of Appeal, commenting, not on this case but on another case, animadverted on the conduct of the foreman of the jury and made certain suggestions. They passed very severe strictures on the foreman for his conduct, and only a few days ago Mr. Justice Darling, who presided at the trial to which I have alluded, made the suggestion, which, if I may respectfully say so, I think was a very proper one, that an oath of secrecy ought to be imposed upon jurors with regard to what transpires in the secret deliberations in the jury room when they are considering their finding. I have ventured to give expression to that suggestion in my Amendment, and I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to adopting it. In a word, it prevents an enterprising journalist from getting hold of an innocent, inoffensive, guileless foreman of a jury, and extracting from him things which the public ought not to know. If those details are made public, it means that, if the prisoner be found guilty, he is given an added penalty by such things being made known, while if he be acquitted, it means that he is subsequently embarrassed in his daily life. I think the point I have in mind will commend itself to most hon. Members and also to the Home Secretary, and, therefore, I hope that he will accept the Amendment, or one having a similar object.
Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I beg to second the Amendment.
The case to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred only emphasises what has previously happened in other cases which were not so well known, and to which so much attention was not drawn. The evil which this Amendment is designed to obviate is, I think, agreed by everyone to be an evil that should be remedied if possible. The jury system in Great Britain has grown up as the result of many centuries' experience, and it is such that in Great Britain anyone can feel that he is having a fair trial. Nothing could be worse than

2125
that anything should be allowed to happen in connection with either civil or criminal trials in this country which would lead to a suspicion that that was not the case, and it is obvious that, as far as criminal cases are concerned, if this practice of jurymen giving interviews to the Press were to develop, it would have a very prejudicial effect upon the administration of justice. If a British citizen be found not guilty by a jury, he is entitled to be considered not guilty by all his fellow-citizens, and no one has any right to suggest that he was not entitled to that verdict. It is true that occasionally the jury themselves by their verdict show that they may have had doubts, as in the case in which the foreman of a jury once said, "Not guilty, but do not do it again." That, however, is unusual, and it certainly would be a very serious thing if jurymen, after deliberating and giving a verdict, perhaps in the case of a man being declared to be not guilty, subsequently declared, either through the Press, or in any other way, that the verdict was one of the majority, or that other matters were considered which should not be made public. I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that that practice is one to be deplored, and I hope that the raising of the matter by this Amendment will enable him to take some steps to ensure that it shall not become common.
Mr. SHORTT: I do not think that anyone would for a moment dispute the great importance of keeping the proceedings of a jury, when they are deliberating, entirely secret, and, indeed, but for a few cases which have, unfortunately, happened, I think it is very seldom that jurymen in this country do disclose what takes place, or are false to the duty which they undoubtedly owe to everyone to keep their proceedings secret. I should be very sorry to think there was any ground for supposing that jurymen as a rule ever do depart from that very salutary rule of silence. With regard to this Amendment, however, while I fully admit the immense importance of securing secrecy, I am not at all sure that this is the right way in which to do it. The subject has only been brought into prominence owing to a recent notorious case, and it has not been properly considered. It is true that the learned judge, whom I have known for many years, and for whom I have the highest
2126
respect, did suggest something of the nature of an oath, but that was not done after consultation with his brethren, or after any real deliberation on the question. It is a new subject, and I think it would be unwise of the House to accept an Amendment on the Report stage in regard to a matter of this kind, which has not been threshed out, and which, before I could accept it, I should be bound to discuss with the judges and those who practice in the Courts. Therefore, I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend, having raised the point, to withdraw this Amendment, and then it can very well be a matter of consideration and discussion between the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor and the Judges, as to what, if any, change should be made in order to secure the secrecy which everyone without exception knows to be not only desirable but necessary.
Captain TUDOR-REES: Before formally withdrawing the Amendment, might I be permitted to say that I raised this question for the purpose of giving the Home Secretary an opportunity of expressing his opinion upon it and of taking such steps as he thinks necessary to bring about an exchange of views between those who are concerned—of endeavouring to bring about conversations between the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and others concerned? May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will do that?
Mr. SHORTT: Yes, certainly.
Captain TUDOR-REES: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Captain TUDOR-REES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, e), to insert a new paragraph—
"(f) for providing that any person summoned to serve on a jury in a civil action shall be reimbursed such necessary travelling and subsistence expenses as he or she shall have reasonably and properly incurred by reason and in consequence of the performance of his or her duties, and the said expenses shall be regarded as costs in the cause and be paid by such party or parties as the judge or presiding magistrate shall direct."
I am encouraged to move this Amendment by the attitude and the statement of the Home Secretary at the commencement of the Debate. He then said that he did not want anything introduced into this Bill that was of a controversial character. No one would suggest that the reimbursement to common jurors of expenses reasonably and properly in-

2127
curred is a controversial topic. It is a matter in which I have been interested for a considerable time, and on more than one occasion the Home Secretary has expressed himself as more or less in agreement. Hon. Members will notice that my Amendment appears to be somewhat lopsided, in that I only provide for the reimbursement of expenses for jurors in civil cases. My proposal would have been that in criminal cases jurors should be reimbursed expenses out of the county or borough fund, as the case may be, but I was advised that that would impose local charges and would not be in order, whereas it would be in order to propose that in civil cases the litigants themselves should bear the expenses that they have caused the jurors to incur by going on with their litigation and getting jurors into court. There is no need to state particular cases. There are scores, hundreds, and, I daresay, thousands of hard cases of jurors known to every Member of the House.
I will, however, venture to record the latest case which has been brought to my notice. It is the case of a man at Ilfracombe, a draper, who at a very busy time was summoned to go to Exeter. Exeter is some distance away, and there are no trains out of Ilfracombe on Sunday. That unfortunate tradesman had to leave Ilfracombe on Saturday afternoon, and went across to Exeter, spent Saturday night there, Sunday, and Sunday night as well, in order to be at the Court at half-past ten next morning. He was there, I think, for two or three days. Meanwhile, his business suffered, he had to pay the expenses incurred for travel and subsistence, and he did not get a single penny for his service or for repayment of his expenses. The irony of the thing is that, living not far away from that gentleman, was a man summoned as a witness. He went to Exeter on that particular day, was kept there for three or four days, and was paid not only travelling and subsistence allowances but a fee as well. In logic and commonsense I cannot see why, if a witness is paid, a juror is not paid as well. He is the only man who takes any part at all in the administration of our judicial system who is not paid for his services. In addition, not only is he not paid, but he has to pay his expenses as well.
Dr. MURRAY: The Great Unpaid!
Captain TUDOR-REES: The Great Unpaid. He is the only man who is compelled to give his services to the country without reward. Everybody in Court, from the judge on the bench down to the usher at the door, is paid——
Dr. MURRAY: Except the prisoner.
Captain TUDOR-REES: No, Sir, even the prisoner gets his reward. Everybody connected with the administration of justice is paid except the unfortunate juror. Business men are taken from their businesses, farmers from their farms, and they incur loss. In addition, their businesses suffer, and, although we are all sympathetic towards jurors and although an agitation has been going on for many years and many Bills have been introduced into this House, the hapless jurors are still in the position they have always occupied, are still without reward for their services, and they have to pay the expenses of travelling to court, from court to home, and of staying at the Assizes or Sessions town as well. I have known men kept away from home for ten, twelve, and fourteen days discharging the onerous duties devolving upon jurymen, and for it they have received not a penny-piece for the reimbursement of expenses they have been compelled to incur.
Some years ago, by reason of an agitation, in which I took a humble part, the Mersey Committee was set up as a Departmental Committee of the Home Office. Their recommendations, so I am advised, were to be incorporated in a Bill which would have been introduced into the House but for the intervention of the War. I am not going into the Mersey Report to-night. I dare say the recommendations of that Report are well known to hon. Members. I will, however, mention with regard to this question of the payment of jurymen, that I gave evidence—of course, that is unimportant—and recommended as a wise provision and so far as my experience went that jurors should receive not reward for their services but reimbursement of their expenses. Nearly all the witnesses called recommended exactly the same thing. Practically all the judges whose views were taken, with two or three exceptions, I think, recommended the same thing, and the Mersey Committee itself in their

2129
Report recommended not payment of jurors but reimbursement of expenses which they had reasonably incurred, by reason of the discharge of duties devolving upon them as jurymen. Indeed, I have never come across any objection raised by any person or body of persons to this Report, except that I have heard it suggested that if jurymen are paid, or if they are repaid their expenses, it might prejudice them or corrupt them. My only answer to that would be, that if unfortunate business men, called away from their businesses to hang about Sessions or Assize Courts for three, ten, or fourteen days, are to be corrupted by having their expenses repaid, to what state of degradation must our learned judges be brought who are paid so handsomely for their services. I do not wish to elaborate the argument. It is a matter that has been before us on many occasions, and on which we have already made up our minds. Most hon. Members have come to the conclusion that this is a fair and reasonable proposal, and in face of the fact that the Home Secretary may not have another opportunity of discharging what I venture to call his obligation to jurymen, I beg him to accept this Amendment, or, if not this Amendment, so to arrange his Bill as to make it possible for jurymen who serve on juries, if not to be paid, to receive the repayment of the expenses that their duty has caused them to incur.
Mr. E. EVANS: In seconding this Amendment I realise that if it be accepted it will not cope with the greatest evil against which it is directed, but it is important that the matter should be raised. My hon. Friend has referred to several cases of hardship. No one who has any connection with Assizes, Sessions, or the High Court, will be unacquainted with many cases in which very great hardship is done to jurors who are called and receive nothing for their out-of-pocket expenses. This Amendment, unfortunately, deals only with civil actions, and I suppose the larger number of common jurors are called upon to serve at criminal trials. Therefore, it does not deal with the greatest evil we have in mind, but it does raise the principle of whether a man who is called upon to serve his country in the capacity of a member of a jury should in addition to losing time and undergoing trouble also be called upon to suffer financially. I do
2130
not think that is a position which should be possible in a country like ours, and I hope the Home Secretary will take the whole matter again into consideration, and will see whether this grievance cannot be removed.
Mr. SHORTT: This, again, is a question of great importance, and one about which I do not think there is very much difference of opinion in principle, although there may be very considerable difference of opinion in detail. It is, at the same time, a matter of great importance, and is one which I am sure everyone will be glad has been raised in this Debate. As both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment said, it really only touches a portion of the subject. In the first place, I suppose that the juries who try the criminal cases at Quarter Sessions and Assizes try the majority of cases that are tried by juries at all. There is no provision in this Amendment for them at all—the reason given is a perfectly valid one—and there is no provision for the payment of coroners' juries. Equally, the provision here is for such payment as there is coming from the litigants themselves, whereas Lord Mersey's Committee not only proposed that both criminal and civil juries should be reimbursed their expenses, but that the cost of their expenses should be borne by the Exchequer.
Captain TUDOR-REES: We have had a war since then.
Mr. SHORTT: That may be, but I am pointing out that this recommendation in many respects differs from the recommendations of the Mersey Committee. It shows very clearly what would have happened to this Bill if I had allowed all the recommendations of Lord Mersey's Committee to be introduced into it. The Bill would then have been a heavy, contentious Measure, and in all probability I should have lost the chance of saving a great deal of money to the local authorities in the preparation of the jury lists. In this case, if my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. E. Evans) will withdraw his Amendment, we can make this subject equally a portion of our discussion and consideration with that of women serving, the taking of the oath, and all the other matters. I certainly shall be very glad indeed to do so.
Dr. MURRAY: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is against the half-

2131
loaf principle in politics. If this proposal be a just one, I do not see why the Home Secretary should not accept it. Instead of that, it has been shelved until the introduction of his nebulous Bill, which may not take place this year nor next. The Government will have plenty of time for their legislation this Session, as there has not been a word as to the reform of the House of Lords, which was to have occupied nearly the whole of the Session. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge that, if the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment ask leave to withdraw it, he will bring in a Bill before the Session ends in order to remedy these admitted defects in our law? I do not see why the legislative machine of this country should not be equal to remedying, even within a few weeks, an admitted injustice of this sort. It is a very hopeless and helpless sort of attitude for the right hon. Gentleman to take up that, because the proposal admittedly is not complete, it should not be accepted. If Mr. Speaker had ruled it out of Order, as being without the province of the Bill, then there would have been no need for the right hon. Gentleman to have replied. Seeing, however, that it is in Order, I do not think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that this injustice, should not be remedied because it leaves other injustices without a remedy until a later date is a good one.
Mr. RAFFAN: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it Is this: "This is a small bill. I cannot deal with contentions subjects, and therefore I will not accept an Amendment which is not contentious." So far as the sense of the House has been shown there seems to be no objection to this Amendment, and certainly no objection has been stated by my right hon. Friend. It is perfectly true that if we carry this reform other reforms will still remain to be achieved. That, I imagine, usually happens whenever a Bill passes through this House. The whole reform which my right hon. Friend desires is much more likely to be achieved early if he secures this instalment now, rather than if he waits for his nebulous Bill, which is not likely to be introduced during the present Session nor by the present Government. I fully appreciate that the Bill is limited in its scope. All manner of questions,
2132
upon which opinion is sharply divided, ought not to be considered in regard to it. My right hon. Friend has given no reason which I can consider adequate for refusing an Amendment which has been desired for many years and which this House has delayed passing simply because hitherto it has not had the opportunity.
Mr. SHORTT: There was one point I made, although I did not emphasise it. There is a strong difference of opinion as to whether the cost of the jury should be put upon litigants, as this Amendment does, or should be paid out of the Exchequer, as the Mersey Committee recommended. Many people think it is not fair to provide justice for people and to charge them fees, and that then they should pay the jury costs. Other people think it fair, but there is a sharp difference of opinion upon that.
Mr. RAFFAN: That may be so. It might be better to put the charge upon the Exchequer. As my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well, however, it is not possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. E. Evans), though it would have been possible to the right hon. Gentleman, to throw this charge upon the Exchequer. Therefore, this matter is exactly in the same position as the question of extending a similar reimbursement to juries in criminal cases. In my view, if the principle were established in an Act of Parliament, it would be so evident that it is right that, whatever Government were in power, the grievance would be remedied. As the matter is left now, I shall be very much surprised if it is put right either this year or next year, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
Mr. HOLM AN GREGORY: For the past 35 years I have taken a very active part in the administration of justice in this country. It is a curious thing that during the whole of that period I personally have never heard a juryman complain of not having his fees paid. It is curious, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. E. Evans) has been raising the point in regard to juries in civil cases, because within the past 18 months the right of an Englishman to a trial at civil action by a jury has been very much restricted. It is only now in very few cases that the subject has the right to demand a trial by jury, and in

2133
practice there are very few cases in which there are juries at all. As an illustration, in our Law Courts this term there were roughly for trial about 900 civil causes. I think fewer than 20 of these were with juries, and the majority of them are special juries, and special jurors are paid a guinea for every case they take. I have known instances where jurors have been called, and two or three cases have been taken, and they have walked away with two or three guineas in their pockets.
Apart altogether from that the Amendment asks us to alter a practice which has existed for centuries. It has been looked upon as one of the duties, and it ought to be one of the prides of an Englishman to assist in the administration of justice and hitherto when they have done so, so far as I know, there has been no serious objection, and I cannot for a moment see why at the present moment this question should be raised. If the question is raised I should certainly say it would be advisable that it should be dealt with as a whole, and it would be unfair to say that the majority of jurors who are called together and kept longest and try prisoners should not be paid their expenses, and the one or two who are called together and happen to be called upon a jury to try a civil action should be paid their expenses. When a jury is called for a civil case it is necessary to call a greater number than it is intended actually to empanel. You may have to call 25 or 30 to secure a panel of 12. Is the litigant to pay for the 25 or 30, or only for the 12 who happen to be called into the box? All these, points have to be considered and dealt with. If they are to be paid, the only feasible way is that they should be paid some reasonable fixed sum by the Exchequer. If you do not do that all sorts of troubles and difficulties arise, such as those I have pointed out, and many others that I could point out. I submit that this is not an opportune moment to raise this question, especially as there is no great call for jurymen in the trial of civil cases.
Mr. RENDALL: The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks with a very large experience, and as mine is a very small one, I differ from him with a certain amount of trepidation, but I feel that he has not quite justly appraised the difficulty which jurymen who have been
2134
and are being called have in making complaint of the fact that they are called and are unpaid. He has told the House that in his long experience he has not known a case of a juryman who has complained of being deprived of earning his own living for a day or two or three days.
Mr. GREGORY: It is not a question of his not being paid. The point before the House is that he should be paid only his travelling expenses and subsistence.
Mr. RENDALL: That may be, but I think the ordinary juryman brought into a Court of Justice would feel the importance of the place and would feel a very humble person in the presence of the judge and counsel, and it would be by no means an easy task for him to complain, and it is not at all surprising that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not heard of any complaints in even his long experience. Now we have an opportunity of dealing with this question in a perfectly simple Bill with, a very simple Amendment which would go some way towards meeting the difficulty, and it seems unfortunate that the Home Secretary has thought fit to refuse to consider the Amendment. He says, "Have another Bill. Let something be done in the future." That is what every Minister, trying to pass through every Bill, has said ever since this House was invented. It really seems to me that we ought to have some more original doctrine from the Home Secretary in these days than this stale repetition that this is not the time, this is not the place, it is not opportune, we are going to get a lot more information, a thorough inquiry with witnesses, Royal Commissions and Committees, and by and by we shall all agree and the Bill will come. That is not the way things ever get done in this House. The only way things ever get done is when some supporter of the Government, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment, is brave enough to put down an Amendment and, as I hope he will, stand by it, putting forward sound arguments in its favour, as I think he has done, and convincing the House that what he wants to do is a reasonable thing. To reply "This is not the time" is playing with the substance of his argument and of his Amendment. It seems to mc it is the time. As the Home Secretary knows better than anyone else, the real difficulty

2135
of this Parliament during this Session is going to be what shall it do with its time? It is a grave discredit to the Government that that should be our position, but it is our position that there is not one Measure of first, second, or even third class importance which is to be produced by the Government during this Session, and so far as I know, one has not even been suggested. We have been hoping against hope that the Government would be brave enough to bring forward proposals for the reform of the House of Lords, but in spite of all the persuasion of the Opposition we have not been able to induce Ministers to say they will introduce Resolutions in the Lords or here, or will do anything to carry out their own programme.
When they will not make a programme for themselves, and when they bring forward, as they have done on this occasion, a really useful Bill, and when they have been offered a chance of making the Bill a little more useful, and know that they have days and weeks of time which they will not know how to kill, it is far better that the House should be engaged in improving the Juries Bill than on something which will be more injurious to their party. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury ought to try to make use of a Bill like this as a safeguard against the disintegration of his own party As long as we are discussing the Juries Bill, Genoa and the House of Lords, and the other difficulties he is faced with to-day with his wretched Parliamentary candidates, will be put on one side, and he can continue to smile sitting on that seat. If he will not try to improve the legislation which his own Government brings forward it will be bad for him, bad for his party, and infinitely worse, bad for the legislation which this House passes. I make one more appeal to the Home Secretary, the kindliest and most courteous of men. Will he not for once in his life say, "The pressure brought to bear upon me is so strong, the Amendment is such a small one—it only grants the principle and does not do much more—I will accept it. We will let it go into the Bill," and that, I think, will do a great deal to make the people think that the lawyers, who are always in control of these matters for some extraordinary reason, are prepared to meet the civil population fairly. In every Court, the Judge is paid anything up to £5,000 or £3,000 a year,
2136
the counsel get big fees, the solicitors are paid, the witnesses are paid, and the only people who are not to receive anything are the jury, who are dragged there in order to try to help the Judge and to help counsel to arrive at a decision. That is most unfair. This Amendment ought to be accepted, and I trust that my hon. and gallant Friend will be as courageous in his action as he has been in his speech, and that we shall go to a Division upon it.
Mr. JOHNSTONE: My hon. Friends who have moved and seconded the Amendment must realise the difficulties in which we are placed, and the limitations imposed upon them. They have not been able to bring in an Amendment to cover the whole ground, and have had to confine themselves to civil actions and civil juries. The remedy they propose and the means they propose to adopt in order to reimburse juries for their out-of-pocket expenses do not appeal to me. I am in favour of jurymen being paid their out-of-pocket expenses, but I am not in favour of this proposal that the cost of reimbursing the juries should be imposed upon the litigants. If the juries are to be reimbursed, the cost should fall on the State. In order to deal with this question one would have to consider, as a whole, both criminal and civil actions. I realise that the limitations imposed upon my hon. Friends in bringing forward their Amendment precluded them from making a charge upon the Exchequer. That is not competent for a private Member to do. That can only be done by the Government. I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not, in spirit, accept the principle, and give some promise that on another occasion, when a comprehensive Measure was brought forward, he would try to deal with the question of the payment of jurymen's expenses.
Mr. SHORTT: I did so.
Mr. JOHNSTONE: My right hon. Friend says that he did so. If that is so, and if he is in favour of the principle of reimbursing juries their out-of-pocket expenses, my hon. Friends might accept that.
Captain TUDOR-REES: Provided he will introduce a Bill this Session.
Mr. JOHNSTONE: My hon. Friends can scarcely tie the right hon. Gentleman to bring in a Bill this Session. I do not

2137
know that the right hon. Gentleman is the master of hiss own fate in these matters. Perhaps there is a higher authority which regulates the Bills that have to come before the House. In view of the promise that the right hon. Gentleman has made, seeing that my hon. Friends' Amendment does not apply to very many jurymen, and that it involves a serious burden upon the litigants, in that they would have to pay the expenses, not only of those who were empanelled on the jury, but those who were summoned. I hope that they will be content with having raised the question, and that they will accept the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, and pester him until he brings in a Bill, either in this Parliament or the next.
Mr. WIGNALL: I was very much surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Holman Gregory) say that in 35 years he had never heard a complaint from a waiting juryman.
Mr. GREGORY Mr. GREGORY indicated dissent.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. WIGNALL: That is what my hon. and learned Friend's words conveyed to my mind. I was going to say that if he had never heard a complaint he must never have stood among the waiting jurymen, and that he had never been summoned to attend as a juryman, that he had never had to travel 20 or 30 miles from his home to answer the summons to attend a jury, and that he had never had to bear the expenses of travelling backwards and forwards, or the expenses of staying in some hotel, or other lodgings, for six days or more. Assizes sometimes last for a month, and jurymen are put to considerable expense. If the hon. and learned Member had been summoned to attend a jury and had mixed with the waiting jurymen, he would have been surprised at the amount of language they use in condemning the system. I can assure the House that if a record were kept of the things that are said by jurymen, the judge would be very busy in sending them for a rest for seven days. I can speak after many years of experience, and I can assure the House that I have never mixed with such a grumbling, grousing crowd as the jurymen who are waiting to be called. I have always been, and still am, in
2138
favour of the system of paying at least the travelling expenses.
There is a difficulty in accepting the Amendment wholeheartedly, because we have to realise that sometimes poor people are litigants, and we do not want to make it more difficult for poor people to avail themselves of the means of adjusting their difficulties in Court. We have to look at the matter from every point of view. Very often jurymen and jurywomen are kept waiting weeks, and when the trials come on they are very paltry cases. They occupy days, and when you sum up the whole thing you wonder why they are there at all. The litigants in those cases are there, perhaps, to enjoy the privilege of appearing as litigants in Court. If they enjoy that privilege, they may be willing to pay for the luxury, and I am sure that the legal gentlemen encourage them to go. It is the poor jurymen who have to suffer all the time, and it is the poor juryman who is losing his earning power and his business in attending there to deal with paltry cases. I think the Home Secretary must take a (sympathetic view of the position, and realise upon whom the burden weighs heaviest, and, if possible, relieve them. That is the only way in which the thing can be done. This reform has been advocated ever since I can remember mixing with the jurymen. All the time they have been crying out for payment, at least to cover the losses which they incurred.
Sir R. NEWMAN: I suggest to my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment that he should accept the undertaking which I understood the Home Secretary to give, namely, that the question would be taken into consideration when the whole question of juries is reviewed.
Captain TUDOR-REES: When?
Sir R. NEWMAN: I imagine that the Home Secretary will take as early an opportunity as possible. But let us assume that there is a slight delay. This point is not so easy as some hon. Members imagine. If you are going to reduce the expenses of juries, it might be wise to reduce the number of jurors themselves. It strikes me as a layman that we might have fewer jurors than at present. The hon. Member spoke of a juryman summoned from one part of Devonshire on a Saturday, and having to spend

2139
all Sunday and Monday away from home at considerable expense. If the litigant has to undertake to pay the expenses of all the jurors, he might be in this very difficult position. There might be one jury drawn from places distant from where the case was heard and the expense would be very heavy. The next jury might be summoned from places that were near and the expense would be much lighter, and there would be a great deal of ill-feeling and difficulty in connection with these juries, is such differences arise. If all the litigants were rich people, it-might not matter very much, but I agree with what one hon. Member has said, that while we do not want to encourage people to go to law, at the same time we should be careful that we do not make it very difficult for the poorer members of the community to go to law and have their grievances put right, and I do not think that we ought to impose on them a financial difficulty which might be very serious. If the litigant had to pay the expense of the jurors, not only those who serve, but those who are called from all parts of the country, it might be very expensive. In principle, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. But now that he has got from the Home Secretary an undertaking that the matter will be considered in another proposal before long, the justice
of the case, I suggest, would be met by the Amendment being withdrawn.
Mr. R. McLAREN: In connection with this matter may I mention that we have in Scotland a system by which jurymen in fatal accident inquiries are paid. In these cases a jury of seven listen to the evidence, and get paid their expenses. The question is a very large one, so large that while I sympathise with the Amendment, I believe that nothing can be done unless on the broad principle of the Exchequer paying all the expenses. If you ask litigants to pay not only for the jury empanelled, but for all those who are summoned to attend on the jury, it would be a very serious matter, and net severely as against poor litigants. In this matter we in Scotland, as we always do, lead the van, and we have a system of payment in operation. Perhaps in the circumstances it would be a good thing if the Amendment were withdrawn and, in accordance with the view suggested by the Home Secretary, the whole matter discussed later on. I am afraid that under this Bill a satisfactory solution cannot be reached.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 151.

Division No. 100.]

AVES.

[10.12 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Barton, sir William (Oldham)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Rendall, Athelstan

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

Grundy, T. W.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Breese, Major Charles E.

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

Robertson, John

Bromfield, William

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

Royce, William Stapleton

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Halls, Walter

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Cairns, John

Hartshorn, Vernon

Sutton, John Edward

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Swan, J. E.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Hirst, G. H.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Hogge, James Myles

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Wignall, James

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bédwellty)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Kennedy, Thomas

Wintringham, Margaret

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

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

Evans, Ernest

Lunn, William

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Finney, Samuel

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Galbraith, Samuel

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gillis, William

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Lieut.-Colonel Wilson and Lieut.- Colonel J. Gilmour.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Myers, Thomas

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Barlow, Sir Montague

Briggs, Harold

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Barnston, Major Harry

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Armitage, Robert

Barrand, A. R.

Brown, Major D. C.

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Betterton, Henry B.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

Bigland, Alfred

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Atkey, A. R.

Birchall, J. Dearman

Carr, W. Theodore

Austin, Sir Herbert

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

Casey, T. W.

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Blair, Sir Reginald

Cautley, Henry Strother

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

Howard, Major S. G.

Rankin, Captain James Stuart

Clough, Sir Robert

Hudson, R. M.

Raper, A. Baldwin

Coats, Sir Stuart

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Hurd, Percy A.

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

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

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

Cowan, Sir W. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Jameson, John Gordon

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Jephcott, A. R.

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Johnstone, Joseph

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

Kenyon, Barnet

Rodger, A. K.

Doyle, N. Grattan

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Rounded, Colonel R. F.

Edge, Captain Sir William

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

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

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Lort-Williams, J.

Seddon, J. A.

Falcon, Captain Michael

Loseby, Captain C. E.

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

Fell, Sir Arthur

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Forrest, Walter

Lyle, C. E. Leonard

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Frece, Sir Walter de

McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

Stanley, Major Hon. G, (Preston)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Stanton, Charles Butt

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Green, Albert (Derby)

Macquisten, F. A.

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Middlebrook, Sir William

Sturrock, J. Leng

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Gregory, Holman

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Sutherland, Sir William

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Taylor, J.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Nail, Major Joseph

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Hailwood, Augustine

Neal, Arthur

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

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

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

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

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

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Hancock, John George

Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Haslam, Lewis

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John j

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

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Parker, James

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Winterton, Earl

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Wise, Frederick

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

Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Worsfold, T. Cato

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

Purchase, H. G.

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Hopkins, John W. W.

Rae, H. Norman

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Ramsden, G. T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Captain Tudor-Rees and Mr. Foot.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

CLAUSE 8.—(Short title, saving, extent, and repeal.)
(2) Nothing in this Act shall alter or affect—
(b) the qualification or liability of any person to be summoned to serve and to serve as a juror or special juror on any jury in the High Court or at Assizes, or in any county court, except that (without prejudice to the provisions of Section thirty-seven of the Juries Act, 1825) a person whose name is not included in the register of electors shall not be qualified or liable so to serve.
Mr. HAILWOOD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2, b), to insert the words
"and that a woman who is a vowed member of a religious order, living in a convent or other religious community, shall not be marked as a juror, and shall not, although included in the jurors' book, be liable to serve on any jury."
This is in substitution for an Amendment which I moved earlier and eventually withdrew.
Mr. SEDDON: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. INSKIP: The Amendment is a reasonable one from the point of view of the persons in whose interest it is moved, but it is drafted in what are narrower terms than those which would cover all the persons who really are in the same case. I do riot know what might be the interpretation of "other religious community." "Convent," of course, is a term which explains itself. All I wish to say is that this Amendment ought not to be regarded as granting a privilege to the members or adherents of any particular church or religious community, and ought not to be taken as a precedent that members of any particular church are to receive a privilege which is not to be given to any other church. The interpretation which I understand those who move it, as well as those who support it, place upon the Amendment, is that it is intended—whether it will be effective or not—to cover the case of all women who have devoted themselves to religious work, and to that extent it is to be a common privilege, which is intended to be given to the members of every religious community. I beg the leave of the House to make these few observations in order

2143
that it may not be supposed that the contrary is the intention or the effect of the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move "That the Bill now be read a Second time."
This is a very short and simple Measure which is probably more interesting and important than Members of the House at first sight may be disposed to think. I think it will command the assent and support of every Member who represents a fishing community. The Bill confers upon the Secretary for Scotland, on application made to him and after such inquiry as he thinks proper, the power, without compensation, to cancel or suspend any licence held under the Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1907, if he is satisfied that the prosecution of the whaling industry under such licence is prejudicial to herring fishing or any other sea fishing. Whaling stations were established in Scotland in the year 1903. They were established in two places—in Shetland and on the west coast in the Hebrides—and the industry has hitherto been regulated by the Act passed in 1907 called the Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Act. This Act prohibits whaling operations in any part of Scotland, except under licence which is granted by the Fisheries Board. Under the provisions of the Act, the powers of the Fisheries Board to cancel or suspend, without the consent of the holders and without compensation, licences which have been issued, are limited to cases in which the holders have infringed the conditions of the licences or have been convicted of an offence under the Act to which I refer. In Shetland, which this Bill particularly affects, there was a good deal of opposition to the continuance of whaling operations, even before the War, and such operations were suspended during the War by Orders which were made by the Naval authorities and which extended over the period from 1914 to 1920. In 1919, under my authority and
2144
in view of representations which had been made against the prosecution of whale fishing because of its alleged deleterious effect upon herring fishing, the Fishery Board appointed a Committee of their members to report upon the whole matter. The Committee in their Report found that on the west, north and north-east coasts of Shetland, there had been a great decline in the herring fishing in the year before the War. They further found that this decline was coincident with the development of the whaling industry in Shetland It is true the Committee did not, in point of fact, hold that it was proved that the two events were related to one another as cause and effect, but they found—and this is very important—that the belief was general in the fishing industry that the two events were so related, and the Committee regarded that belief as, in itself, a sufficiently deterrent influence to prevent the revival of the herring fishing industry on the coast, and in the waters referred to.
The Committee recommended that on this ground whaling operations from stations in Shetland should be prohibited by legislation. That was the unanimous recommendation of a responsible and well-informed Committee of the Fishery Board. The Bill which I am presenting to the House for Second Reading to-night does not go so far as the recommendation of that Committee. The object of the Bill, as I say, is merely to enable the Secretary for Scotland, after investigation made, and if satisfied that the whaling industry is prejudicial to the herring fishing industry, to cancel or to suspend existing licences. Before going even so far as that, I made it my business—if the House will forgive me for a personal note—to convene a conference between those interested in the whale fishing industry in Scotland, and the inhabitants of Shetland, with the public bodies of that island, who are all of the same mind in the matter, to see whether we could find some modus vivendi. I hoped that could be done, but I found it was quite impossible. On the one hand, I had those interested in the whaling industry contending that the status quo should be maintained, that nothing should be done, and, on the other hand, I found those who represented the public bodies of Shetland and those who represented the herring fishing industry con-

2145
tending that, on the lines of the Report of the Committee, whaling should be absolutely prohibited, I was disappointed with the result of that conference, and I felt bound to legislate, but the legislation which is proposed is, as the House will see, a compromise between those two extreme positions.
On the one hand, one is not proposing that the industry should be prohibited; on the other hand, one is not proposing that the status quo should be maintained. I merely propose, under the circumstances which I have mentioned, that the Secretary for Scotland, whoever he may be, should have power, if it is proved to his satisfaction that the whaling industry, which after all affects a very small part of the community, is prejudicial to the herring fishing industry, which affects a very large part of the community, to cancel a licence. The powers in the Bill which I present are not limited to Shetland. While it is not alleged that in the Hebrides any deleterious results from the whale fishing have followed, nevertheless I think it is desirable that one should take general powers, for use if necessity should arise. The Act of 1907, to which I have referred, did not contemplate that the prohibition of whaling would be necessary, and under its provisions a licence, once issued, could only be terminated at the instance of the Fishery Board in the event of the infringement of the conditions upon which the licence, was granted, or on conviction of the holder, but on the footing that whaling may be proved to be prejudicial to the herring fishing industry, that Act, I think, is defective, inasmuch as it does not provide for the contingency to which I have referred. The present Bill proposes to remedy that defect in the manner which I have mentioned.
As regards compensation, the Bill provides for cancellation or suspension of a licence, in the event mentioned, without compensation. The justification for that is very obvious. It is that, the licence holders are not entitled to expect compensation for the discontinuance of their operations if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary for Scotland for the time being that their operations are injurious to so great a branch of the fishing industry as the herring fishing industry. I am advised by the Law Officers that in law not a single penny of compensation is due in respect to the proposals which are made. I am anxious to get the
2146
Second Reading of this Bill, and also of the following Bill, the Fishery Board (Tenure of Office of Chairman) (Scotland) Bill, to-night, and I therefore contract the observations which I had intended to make, and content myself by saying that this is a Measure which is urgently desired by the herring fishing industry, and I hope that, without any difficulty at all, the House will be good enough to give me the Second Reading.
Sir GODFREY COLLINS: In deference to the views of the Secretary for Scotland, my remarks this evening will be very brief, because I know a large number of Members are anxious to take part in the Debate. I have received representations from firms near my constituency whose interests, they consider, will be adversely affected if this Bill passes into law. That is my reason for bringing to the attention of the Secretary for Scotland a few points in connection with this Bill. May I say that I voice my own views entirely in this matter, and do not speak for any of my colleagues with whom I am generally associated? The Secretary for Scotland, in the closing passage of his speech, stated that he had been advised by legal authority that licence holders who are carrying on this trade are not entitled by law to any compensation. The point to which the industries affected under this Bill take exception is that the Secretary for Scotland, whoever he may be for the time being, will have power to prohibit whaling entirely, and not only whaling, but the allied interests that are directly affected. The Secretary for Scotland was very careful in his observations this evening not to commit himself to the principle that whaling was injurious to the herring industry, and the Report of the Committee to which he referred, very clearly brings out that the members of that Committee did not consider that the herring industry was adversely affected by the whaling industry. The point I am anxious to put to the Secretary for Scotland is that this Committee, which heard evidence from various parts of the North of Scotland, and investigated the matter very carefully, did not express their own belief that the whaling industry adversely affected the herring industry.
Mr. MUNRO: I think it would be fair to point out that the fifth finding of the Committee was that this general and

2147
unquestioned belief (that is, that one industry did adversely affect the other) was in itself a deterrent influence on the herring fishing.
Sir G. COLLINS: I had intended, if time permitted, to draw attention to that paragraph, but my point is that this Committee did not commit themselves to the opinion that the herring industry was adversely affected by the whaling industry. If the present Secretary for Scotland were going to administer this Bill year by year in the future, I for one would have complete confidence that he would not prohibit whaling unless the case were proved, but have we any assurance that the present occupant of the office will continue in power, say, for the next 3, 5 or 10 years? Undoubtedly this Bill will become an Act of Parliament. I have no desire to stop this Bill becoming law if the Secretary for Scotland will give me one simple assurance that on the Committee stage, instead of the powers being administered by the Secretary for Scotland, a Committee shall be appointed composed of the Secretary for Scotland, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates of Scotland. I hope that, perhaps, before the Debate terminates this evening we may have some assurance from the Secretary for Scotland that on the Committee stage of the Bill he will keep an open mind on the subject. Although to-night I was extremely desirous to represent at some length the case of those adversely affected by this Bill—there is British capital and there are British workmen who are concerned—in deference to the fact that other hon. Members are anxious to take part in the Debate, I will not bring the facts and figures which have been supplied to me to the attention of the House. It has been argued that in Norway whaling has been prohibited by Act of Parliament. It is rather a striking fact that legislation in that country was only passed by one vote, which seems to suggest the diversity of opinion as to the causes of the migration of the herrings from one portion of the ocean to another. Although I have put an Amendment down to this Bill, I am not anxious to move it if I can have some assurance from my right hon. Friend opposite that the point to
2148
which I have called his attention will receive some favourable consideration in Grand Committee.
Sir MALCOLM SMITH: As the question before the House is one which vitally affects the constituency which I have the honour to represent perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words upon it. It may not be known to the House that whale fishing has been carried on off Norway by modern methods for quite a considerable number of years. As whale fishing, however, progressed in Norway so shore fisheries gradually declined. The change of fisheries was attributed by fishermen to the fact that on the same grounds on which they were carrying on their cod fishing, whale fishing was also being prosecuted. The fishermen of Norway appealed to their Government to introduce provisions dealing with whale fishing. In 1896 the Norwegian Legislature introduced a Measure prohibiting whale fishing for certain months of the year, and made certain restrictions in regard to the industry. These provisions were not satisfactory. They did not give the fishermen that protection they thought they required, and consequently as the fishermen in the cod fisheries saw their trade going down year by year, they became exasperated and took the law into their own hands.
They destroyed the whale fishing stations. Then the Legislature of Norway, seeing that matters were assuming a very serious aspect, passed a Measure prohibiting whale fishing on the North-West coast of Norway for 10 years. The whale fishermen of Norway, when they saw that trouble was brewing looked around for happy hunting grounds elsewhere, and they subsequently settled on the West coast of the Shetlands, where at that time there was a very successful herring fishery. There was not very much information given as to the reason why these men came over. I dare say if it had been known that they had been expelled from Norway, and the conditions made public in which they left their own country there might have been considerable opposition to their settlement. The facts were very well known to our Government. The British Consul-General in Christiania conveyed to the Foreign Office in London at that time full information as to what was going on, as to the riots in Norway in connection with

2149
these fisheries, and the effect upon the cod fishing, but despite that fact the Norwegians were allowed to settle in Shetland. In 1903 two companies started operations. In 1904 two more companies started as the first operations had been successful on the West coast of the Shetlands. I should like to mention the effect on the cod fisheries in Norway. For the 10 years ending 1895 the fishing on one important section of this coast of Norway averaged 26,500,000 cod. For the 10 years ending 1905, about the time the whale fishing was prohibited, the total fell to an average of 14,500,000.
The herring fishing on the west side of Shetland when whaling commenced employed 1,500 boats and 8,000 to 10,000 fishermen, besides a large number of shore workers. These people belonged not only to the Shetlands, but also to the mainland and some to Ireland. The herring fishing was very successful on the west coast of the Shetlands, and the quality superior to the fish landed on the other parts of the coast. It was conducted when fishing was not in operation at other ports, in the months of May and June. Then the fishermen and outers went to the east side of the Shetlands and carried on their operations there, and so on all round the coast. The effect of whale fishing upon herring fishing in the Shetlands was disastrous.
I have not time to give the figures in detail, but in the year 1902, in one Section alone, the number of crans of herrings amounted to 27,776. In 1906 it had fallen to 1,400 crans, and in 1910 it had disappeared altogether. While the whale fishing was confined to the West side, the herring fishing on the North went on successfully, but when the whales began to get scarce on the west side, the whale fishers in 1906 proceeded to the northern waters in search of whales. Then herring fishing at the northern stations diminished also. Take the station of Baltasound. In 1905, the catch of herrings was 243,000 crans. In the following year it was 136,000 crans, and in 1907, 61,000 crans. There is a great deal more to be said on this subject. It may be asked in what respect does whale fishing affect herring fishing or cod fishing. That is probably a subject for scientists, but they have given us no assistance in the matter. One eminent scientist says:
"The herring is a very sensitive and intelligent fish."
2150
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That information is provided by Sir James Crichton Browne.
"It is keen of sight and of smell. It is highly responsive to changes in temperature mid to any physical disturbance, and deeply imbued with sound sanitary principles. It always avoids dirty or polluted water. Long ago the Dutch prohibited the gutting of fish at sea, for they found that the throwing away of the offal into the sea drove away the herrings from the herring grounds."
If that is the evidence of an eminent scientist with regard to this fish, upon which the welfare of the community so much depends, what effect may the hunting of whales have upon it in the same region? The whalers are hunting whales there now with harpoon guns, and they are towing whales, after they have been caught, two, three and four at a time, over the ground where the herring is caught. All the whales that are shot are not caught. It is reckoned that at least 5 per cent, of the whales shot are lost to the whalers, and the carcases of these may afterwards drift about in the ocean and pollute the herring fishing-grounds. One can imagine the effect of that upon the fish. I wish to bring before the House the importance to my constituency of the herring fishing as compared with the whale fishing. The value of the herring fishing in these waters averaged prior to introduction of whaling something like £200,000 to £300,000 per annum, whereas the value of the whale fishing landed in Shetland in the year 1913 was not more than £35,000.
Mr. STURROCK: What about the mainland?
Sir M. SMITH: I am not discussing that now. These islands have suffered very severely by this. The population has gone down during the last decade to a very serious extent. No doubt, a considerable number of the men lost their lives in the War, because that small community sent no fewer than 4,000 men to the colours, besides a large number who served in the Mercantile Marine, and over 600 made the supreme sacrifice. That may account, to some extent, for the diminution in the population, but unless we can maintain local industries the population will go down more rapidly. It has been the aim of the Government to do its utmost to keep the people on the land, and I hold that anything that damages an industry

2151
such as this, on which the community depends, ought not to be countenanced. Therefore, I hope the House will see its way to passing this Measure.
Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I must apologise for intervening in a Scottish Debate, but while I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir M. Smith) that the disturbance to the herring, and its distaste for polluted water is to some extent the cause of this Bill, I think a greater blame is fastened on the whales than is really attributable to them. I think it will be known to the House that it was not until the 15th century that the herring bred in the North Sea at all, the reason being that he would not come out from the Sound into the North Sea, because the whales came down quite low towards Denmark and chased him back into the Sound. But when the Dutch fishers came and exterminated the whales that came South, the herring ventured out into the North Sea and bred there. What was the reason that we have had no good herrings this year? I think the reason is other than the whales. In the first place, the blowing up of wrecks has had a great deal to do with frightening this timid fish. Then the oil and petrol from the wrecks that had been blown up disgusted the fish, which will not go near polluted water. Moreover, the drift nets have got entangled in the wrecks, and the herrings, having been caught in these nets, have perished there, as the uncaptured wounded whales have perished, and polluted the water and driven the other herring away. The hot summer of last year had another effect. Herring will not breed in water that is above 55 degrees Fahr., and, on account of the warmth of the water in the regions where they were accustomed to breed, they have gone further north into the territory of the whales, and have been harried by the whales.
What he said about cutting up whales on the neighbouring coasts is quite right. I think that action should be taken by the Fishery Board for Scotland to prevent the cutting up of whales and the throwing overboard of offal into the waters of the Highlands. As hon. Members know, the Dutch in the sixteenth
2152
and seventeenth centuries stopped the practice because it would frighten away shoals. The noise of blowing-up wrecks has a much greater effect on herrings than do whales. I have been at sea and have seen a shoal scared out of sight almost by the snap of a finger. So far as this Bill is concerned, I am in favour of it if it is going to help the herring fishery, but I think that, instead of taking the line of preventing whales being caught, the Secretary for Scotland should have the matter looked into as to the extent to which waters are polluted by the cutting up of these fish, and as to what extent the blowing up of wrecks has had a similar effect. Although scientists have not told us much about what the cause of the trouble is, the herring fishery has to be defended, we should not run into panic legislation of this kind as though the withholding of licences from whale fishers would solve the whole difficulty.
My remedy is to pass this Bill if you wish, but to take some steps to examine to what extent the blowing up of wrecks, the losing of nets containing dead fish, the cutting up of whales on coasts near herring fisheries, and the throwing over of offal have had an effect on the catching of our herrings. More especially the Secretary for Scotland should secure some scientific examination about the temperature of the water. I am perfectly convinced that a hot summer drives the herrings further north from their breeding grounds and takes them into territories where whales harry them. I suggest, therefore, that this Bill will not do what we require, but that the question is one that ought to be dealt with by scientists rather than by a Measure of this kind.
Mr. MUNRO: By leave of the House, may I make an appeal that hon. Members will give me the Second Reading of the Measure to-night? The Second Reading will be taken on the distinct assurance that all questions of detail on the Bill, including those referred to in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), shall be most carefully and fully explored in the Committee stage.
Sir HENRY COWAN: As representing the two great Scottish fishing ports of Peterhead and Fraserburgh, I think I am entitled to say a word. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) no

2153
doubt is a great authority on herrings, from the point of view of the consumer, but I venture to think that those Members of this House who represent the herring fishing constituencies know more about the herring fishing industry than he can possibly do. It is perfectly true that the hon. Member has written a book on the herring. I think it refers particularly to the cooking of the herring, and not to the catching. I should like to say that on this subject the herring fishers of Peterhead and Fraserburgh take entirely the same view as my hon. Friend who represents Orkney and Shetland (Sir M. Smith). The Secretary for Scotland has referred to the alleged deleterious effect of the whale fishing on the herring fishing. I think that there can be no doubt about this deleterious effect. The fact that the prohibition of whale fishing is urgently desired by the herring fishing industry ought to be sufficient evidence that that industry is suffering from the effects of the whale fishing industry. That industry is conducted by Norwegians who have been expelled from their own country, and prohibited from carrying on their industry there, and they are not entitled to come to Scotland in face of the reasoned opposition of the whole herring fishing industry and to carry on whale fishing in Scotland to the detriment of the industry. That industry is of the most vital importance to the whole of the North-Eastern Coast of Scotland.
I should have liked to have gone into this question at much greater length and to have emphasised the point which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir M. Smith) has made and to deal with the matter from the point of view of my own constituency and from the standpoint of the herring fishing industry in the whole of Scotland. Further, I regard this Measure as by no means effective and sufficient. It is, as the Secretary for Scotland has said, as a compromise and a Bill merely to enable him and his successors to control the whale-fishing industry if they are satisfied that it is detrimental to the herring-fishing industry. Although I regard it as inadequate, still, in view of the facts, I propose to give other hon. Members an opportunity to take part in the discussion.
Mr. STURROCK: I wish to say how much I regret that this Bill has come on to-night in the last half-hour, and that we are unable to consider it reasonably. It; raises a most important principle which ought to be threshed out on the Floor of the House. With all respect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, to give him the power to prevent whale fishing is a very serious departure from our accepted tradition in matters of legislation. I think it is a question which ought to have far more consideration than we can possibly give it. The whaling industry has been and conceivably may be again, a most important one. This sort of Measure is not the right way to deal with it. I regret very much that we have so little time to consider it, and that Scottish Members have always been dealt with in this manner.
Mr. N. MACLEAN: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Sturrock) in protesting against the way in which Scottish Bills are brought forward in this House. At 10.30 to-night the Secretary for Scotland rose to tell us that he wanted this and another Bill to-night. Under those circumstances we could not discuss them adequately. The Second Reading is the only occasion on which we are allowed to go into every possible detail, to bring forward facts and figures. We are not allowed to do so in Committee, where the scope of the discussion is limited. This is the manner in which the Government and the Secretary for Scotland deal with Scottish affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I withdraw with regard to the Secretary for Scotland. Perhaps it is McConnachie who is behind him in the Government; at any rate, I protest against it.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

AIR MINISTRY (KENLEY COMMON ACQUISITION) [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the President of the Air Council under any Act of the present Session to confirm

2155
an agreement between the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London and the President of the Air Council in relation to the acquisition of certain lands in the county of Surrey, and for purposes in connection therewith or under the agreement thereby confirmed—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

AIR MINISTRY (KENLEY COMMON ACQUISITION) [EXPENSES].

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.

  MERCHANT SHIPS (DEFENSIVE ARMAMENTS).
  MERCHANT SHIPS (DEFENSIVE ARMAMENTS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (VACCINATION).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (VACCINATION).
BRITISH ARMY.
  RETIRED PAY (REASSESSMENT).
  RETIRED PAY (REASSESSMENT).
  2ND BATTALION ROYAL HIGHLANDERS.
  2ND BATTALION ROYAL HIGHLANDERS.
  COMPULSORILY RETIRED OFFICERS.
  COMPULSORILY RETIRED OFFICERS.
  CLASPS.
  CLASPS.
  WAR OFFICE AND ADMIRALTY (TECHNICAL COSTS BRANCH).
  WAR OFFICE AND ADMIRALTY (TECHNICAL COSTS BRANCH).
  GENOA CONFERENCE.
  GENOA CONFERENCE.
  SAVINGS BANKS DEPOSITS.
  SAVINGS BANKS DEPOSITS.
  REPARATION COMMISSION.
  REPARATION COMMISSION.
FINANCE BILL.
  INCOME TAX AND BEER DUTY.
  INCOME TAX AND BEER DUTY.
  CIVIL SEKVICE BONUS (INDEX FIGURE).
  CIVIL SEKVICE BONUS (INDEX FIGURE).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  INDIRECT TAXES.
  INDIRECT TAXES.
  BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY
  BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY
  BRITISH CLAIMS, GERMANY.
  BRITISH CLAIMS, GERMANY.
TRANSPORT.
  TRAMS AND OMNIBUSES (OVERCROWDING).
  TRAMS AND OMNIBUSES (OVERCROWDING).
  HACKNEY CARRIAGE ACTS (SUMMONSES).
  HACKNEY CARRIAGE ACTS (SUMMONSES).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (ROAD FUND).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (ROAD FUND).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (J. A. PARE, W. K. C. BUFFIN AND J. GODWIN).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (J. A. PARE, W. K. C. BUFFIN AND J. GODWIN).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (AREA PENSION OFFICES).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (AREA PENSION OFFICES).
INDIA.
  INDEBTEDNESS AND TAXATION.
  INDEBTEDNESS AND TAXATION.
  ARMY OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).
  ARMY OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).
POST OFFICE.
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  NEWSPAPER POST.
  NEWSPAPER POST.
  TELEPHONE CHARGES.
  TELEPHONE CHARGES.
  EX-ENEMY PROPERTY.
  EX-ENEMY PROPERTY.
  ZINC CONCENTRATES AND SPELTER (ACCOUNTS).
  ZINC CONCENTRATES AND SPELTER (ACCOUNTS).
  IMPORTED TIMBER TRADING ACCOUNTS.
  IMPORTED TIMBER TRADING ACCOUNTS.
  SANTONIN.
  SANTONIN.
  DIPHTHERIA (SCHICK TEST).
  DIPHTHERIA (SCHICK TEST).
  WATER SUPPLY, BOSTON AND SKIRBECK.
  WATER SUPPLY, BOSTON AND SKIRBECK.
  SUPPLEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  SUPPLEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL AGREEMENTS.
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL AGREEMENTS.
  CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAW (INEQUALITIES).
  CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAW (INEQUALITIES).
  KENYA COLONY (GOVERNOR).
  KENYA COLONY (GOVERNOR).
  RHODESIA.
  RHODESIA.
  OIL CONCESSIONS, RUSSIA.
  OIL CONCESSIONS, RUSSIA.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PORT OF LONDON AND MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
SUNDERLAND AND SOUTH SHIELDS WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
SHEFFIELD GAS COMPANY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
WORTHING CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to put a Question to my noble friend the First Commissioner of Works as to the Allotments Bill. I understand that it is not proposed to take the Committee stage of that Bill effectively this afternoon; indeed, His Majesty's Government have already announced that fact. But perhaps my noble friend may have some statement to make regarding the future progress of the measure.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, the noble Marquess is correct in saying that the Bill will not be taken today. A general desire was expressed that there should be a very full interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and, accordingly, I suggest that the Committee stage should be begun this day fortnight; that is, May 23. It is impossible to forecast how long the Committee stage will take, but in view of the fact that the Bill was circulated and made public on April 8 or thereabouts, I express a very strong hope that it may be possible to complete the remaining stages of the Bill before Whitsuntide in order that the House of Commons may consider it as soon as possible after the Whitsuntide recess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As far as I am concerned, my Lords, I do not wish to offer any objection to the course which the noble Earl proposes to take. But I gather from what he has said that he does hope that this Allotments Bill—subject to any Amendments your Lordships may see fit to make in it—will be passed in the present session. In that case the question as to what is to happen to Part II of the Agricultural Holdings Bill becomes still more urgent. Your Lordships will remember that Part II of that Bill deals with allotments, and the rather absurd thing will happen that that part of the Consolidation Bill will be already out of date before the Prorogation, if the Allotments Bill passes into law. On a former occasion I ventured to make a suggestion which the Government may have had an opportunity of considering—whether they would not move themselves to strike Part II out of the Consolidation Bill, or at any rate to intimate to my noble friend, Lord Muir Mackenzie, that they do not propose finally to pass it, so that he may not have his time thrown away.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I should like to add one word upon that subject, because I took it upon myself to say something the other day. I venture to suggest that the Bill should go to the Consolidation Committee just as it is, and that it should be left to that Committee to consider what the effect is of having Clause 11 of the Act of 1920 put in as Part II of the Bill. Unless something is done with that clause so much of the old Bill will be

285
left outstanding that it would certainly be inconvenient, but if the noble Earl in charge of the Allotments Bill (the Earl of Ancaster) should deal with the subject in the Allotments Bill it would then be clear of the Statute Book altogether. I should think it would be a good thing if the Consolidation Committee were allowed to consider the point, and to report upon it to this House when they report upon the Bill generally.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, it is certainly the hope of the Government that this Bill will pass during the present session, but at what date it will pass in the present session is very material to the issue my noble friend has just raised. It is possible that the Bill may come back to this House amended, and that we shall have to consider the Amendments. There may be conversations, and it may be well into July before the Bill is passed. I think it would be imprudent that the Consolidation Committee should suspend its labours in consequence, and I would remind your Lordships that that Committee is perfectly entitled, if it so thinks, to exclude or recommend this House to exclude, Part II of the Bill. If, during the process of investigation, Lord Muir Mackenzie's Committee sees that the Allotments Bill itself is likely to pass soon, they can suspend their operations on Part II, or, if time permitted, the necessary Amendments could be inserted on the Report stage. I should regret, however, if at this stage we held up the work of the Consolidation Committee. There are twenty or twenty-five Statutes to consolidate, irrespective of the Allotments Bill, and there is great opportunitity for the good work of that Committee, apart altogether from the question of the amendment of the law.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I desire to ask whether it is not the fact that this part was really put into the Bill as an afterthought? I understood that the rest of the Bill was largely, if not entirely, drawn up by the Central Land Association, and that this was put in by the Ministry of Agriculture after the Bill was drafted.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not think it was an afterthought at all. It is a very material part of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I was under the impression that the Consolidation Committee had to deal only
286
with consolidation, and that it was not their practice to recommend that substantial parts of Bills should be omitted altogether, but after what the noble Earl has said, and after having heard my noble friend who is Chairman of the Committee say that they would carefully consider whether that part of the Bill ought to be struck out as part of their reference, I have no objection to that course if my noble friend, Lord Muir Mackenzie, and his Committee are at liberty to make whatever recommendation they think best to the House. That is, I think, a satisfactory solution.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is the inherent right of the Committee without any instructions from your Lordships' House.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CARDIFF EXTENSION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I am afraid this is a somewhat long Bill, the Second Read-in of which I now move, and it is only right I should say, in the first place, that the Bill is largely a consolidating measure. There are in it also a few important amendments to the existing law which I shall attempt to explain to your Lordships. This Bill is one which is intensely desired by all those who are in any way concerned with salmon and freshwater fisheries. They have long felt that such a Bill is urgently required. In addition to the support both of salmon and trout fishermen, those who fish for coarse fish are also very anxious that this Bill should pass into law. Moreover, I think it will command the support of a very large number of persons who desire that the amenities of our country districts should to a certain extent be preserved, and that some of those bright and clear rippling streams which at present flow through our country districts should, if possible, remain in that

287
condition, and not be converted into open and smelling sewers and the means of conveying all sorts of poisonous matter to the sea.
As I have said, the Bill is primarily a consolidating Bill. There are no fewer than twenty Acts dealing with fisheries that were passed between the years 1861 and 1907. I am referring only to England. The consolidation of these Acts has long been urgently demanded. In the process of consolidation existing legislation has been frequently amended by the omission of what appeared to be obsolete or otherwise undesirable, and by variations of language to interpret what is obscure and to reconcile apparently contradictory passages in different Acts. Any person who attempted to follow the law among these nineteen or twenty Acts would find his task a most difficult one. In addition, opportunity has been taken to group clauses dealing with the same subject.
Having said so much in regard to consolidation, I may briefly refer to the main lines on which this Bill proceeds by way of amendment. In the first place, certain amendments are proposed to the existing law by means of which we desire to give fuller power to the fishery boards, and power to the Minister to enable him, if he finds that a fishery board has become practically defunct, and that in consequence fishing in the district has been prejudicially affected, to endeavour to resuscitate that board, and to create an interest in the fishing in that particular district. In the second place, a certain number of Amendments to the existing law have been inserted mainly to meet the demands of those who fish for coarse fish as opposed to the salmon and trout fishermen. Thirdly, the most important direction in which amendment is proposed is in that of attempting to prevent further pollution of our streams, and, if possible, to mitigate the pollution which already exists.
This Bill is practically the same as that which was introduced in another place by the Minister of Agriculture last session. That Bill was introduced mainly for the purpose of obtaining the views of fishery boards and angling associations and officials, as well as those representing the Federation of British Industries. It consequence of the introduction of that Bill a Committee consisting of representatives of all these different interests—boards of conservators,
288
angling associations, the Federation of British Industries, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries—have carefully considered the provisions of this Bill, especially those dealing with pollution, and I had hoped to be able to tell your Lordships this afternoon that it is an agreed measure. Agreement has been reached on most points, but I have reason to suppose that the Federation of British Industries has become somewhat alarmed at Clause 8, which deals with the protection of waters containing fish from poisonous matter and trade effluents. In spite of that I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill to-day, and before the Committee stage I shall have an opportunity of meeting the representatives of these various interests again when we may yet arrive at a compromise on the point in dispute.
To those who might be disposed to oppose the Second Reading in the interests of British industry I may say that I cannot make any pledge at the present time without consulting the fishing interests. The point has been raised during the last few days and I have had no opportunity of consulting them. For the moment I can only say that I feel some sympathy with the suggestion advanced by the Federation of British Industries that differentiation should be made between works which are discharging effluents into a river at the passing of this Bill and any new works. That is the real point at issue, and I have some sympathy, as I say, with the suggestion made by the Federation of British Industries. I hope that before the Committee stage the various interests will come to a compromise on the matter.
Let me now pass to the amendments effected by the Bill. The Ministry is taking certain powers in order to be able to resuscitate those fishery boards which have ceased to function, or which function only in a haphazard manner. Under existing legislation the Ministry can require a fishing pass to be of such form and dimensions as it can approve, and it can sanction or disallow any by-law. It has no power, however to initiate any scheme for the improvement of the fishery. Under Clauses 38, 39, 40 and 41, the Ministry asks for powers to enable it to set up fishery boards where they have ceased to exist and to stimulate into more active work those boards which may be said to be hibernating.
Another important matter dealt with is the increased protection given to freshwater

289
fish. This has been done at the instigation of the Anglers' Association, which numbers many hundreds of thousands and which is most anxious that some improvement should take place in this respect. Under existing legislation salmon and trout alone are effectively protected. Under the Act of 1878, known as the Mundella Act, a close season for freshwater fish was fixed and boards of conservators, now to be called fishery boards, were enabled, with the approval of the Minister, to exempt the whole or any part of a district from the operation of the close season. The power to abrogate the close season has been omitted from the present Bill in order to meet the wishes of anglers. All the provisions of the Bill enacted for the preservation of salmon and trout so far as they are applicable are made also to apply to freshwater fish. In addition to that we intend to allow anglers representation on fishery boards where they pay a small licence duty. It will lead to a greater interest in fishing among many thousands of people and also provide a small sum of money which will be available for stocking and improving some of the existing rivers with freshwater fish. This is done by Clause 64.
Now I come to what is perhaps the most important part of the measure—namely, that which deals with pollution. In the past pollution has undoubtedly been the great enemy of the improvement of salmon and freshwater fishing in this country, and any one who is interested in fishing will agree that the law is, at the moment, in a most unsatisfactory state. The Bill, in the first place, simplifies the procedure in the case of a prosecution, and it places any river that contains coarse fish on the same footing as regards pollution as a river which contains salmon. At the present moment a river which is a salmon river is in a better position to fight pollution than a river which contains only coarse fish. By this Bill we propose that the fishery board of a river which contains no salmon shall have the same power to check pollution as the board of a river which contains salmon and trout. This new power is given in Clause 8, and there is also a proviso to prevent frivolous prosecutions by any interested person. It says that no prosecution shall be brought by any person who feels himself aggrieved unless he obtains a certificate from the Minister of Agriculture.
290
At the present moment prosecutions for pollution in rivers other than salmon rivers can only be instituted by the sanitary authority, with the consent of the Ministry of Health. By Clause 54, fishery boards will be able to prosecute. From the fishermen's point of view the position previously was most unsatisfactory because in very many cases the worst polluters and offenders were the sanitary authorities themselves, and the difficulty was to stir up the sanitary authority to prosecute even in the grossest ease of pollution. There is a further provision as regards pollution, extending the power of the fishery boards to deal with pollution of that part of rivers which extends to the sea or to tidal waters. That is carried out by Clause 54. Before that is done, a local inquiry must be held by representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Health, and be determined by an Order of the Ministry of Health.
There are complaints among fishermen that these new powers given to the fishery boards and the extension of the powers to tidal waters do not go far enough, and we have been urged very strongly by those interested in fisheries, both of salmon and of coarse fish, that we ought to go a great deal further. There may be opposition to this Bill on the ground that it does not go far enough, but I can only say to noble Lords who take that view that as things are at present I think it is impossible to go further than we have gone. Our chief object has been to take the manufacturers with us wherever we possibly can. It would, of course, be perfectly hopeless to try to pass legislation through Parliament which in any way seriously affected some of the great industries of the country. In that connection, I may say that we have a small Committee continually sitting, representative of manufacturers and of fishermen, and including those who can give every scientific assistance, to try to deal as best we can with the noxious refuse passing from factories and other sources into the rivers.
We believe that science will help us a good deal in that respect, and, if we can only take manufacturers along with us, we may be able, with the help of science, in many instances to convert what is now a dangerous fluid flowing into the rivers into an innocuous one by certain methods of treatment, and it may also be possible

291
to obtain from these noxious fluids certain by-products which, while they may not be profitable, will at least pay the cost of the treatment. I say that in order that your Lordships may know that, although we may not have gone so far as some of your Lordships would wish in the direction of stopping pollution, we are trying to take manufacturers and others with us and are doing all we legitimately can.
There are other minor amendments to the existing law, one of the most important of which is that sellers of salmon and trout should be registered. That is enacted in Clause 33. We believe that will be a very great deterrent to poachers. I am one of those who think that if you have to obtain a game licence before you can sell pheasants' eggs it is not making a very much greater demand upon dealers in salmon and trout to insist that they also should take out a licence. I have had cases brought to my notice of most gross examples of poaching, where salmon have been killed in large numbers by the use of explosives in pools and by other methods, and then exposed for sale. At present nothing can be done in such cases. When you have a licence for these dealers in salmon and trout, though the fee may be quite a small one, the fact will be a great help in detecting these gross cases of poaching.
Another provision requires that people who take water from a river and put it back again are to fix gratings both where the water runs out and where it re-enters. That is covered by Clause 23. There is also a small amendment which allows in certain cases a darn to be erected without making it necessary that a fish pass should be put in the dam. We have had certain cases brought to our notice where a dam has been specially erected in order to prevent migratory fish such as salmon and sea trout going up a certain branch; we have known that they have all been poached there and come to an untimely end. Anyone who does that is not acting against the law, because the law is that you should put a fish pass in the dam, which is what you do not want to do, because the fish will go up it. The other chief amendment relates to penalties. The maximum penalties have been increased, and a general penalty clause has been inserted.
I have now touched, I think, upon nearly all the chief amendments to the existing law. In conclusion, in asking your Lordships to agree to the Second Reading of
292
this Bill, I should like to say that here in England, as most of your Lordships are aware, a great many of these fishings are public rights, and we consider that as a Ministry of Fisheries we are bound to try to protect those public rights, and, by protecting them, to make our rivers as prolific as we can. All those interested in the subject will agree that as a Ministry we should be deficient in our duty if we did not do our best, in conjunction with manufacturers, to preserve them, in the interests of the public and in the interests of the protection of both salmon and freshwater fish. So long as we can do that, I think most noble Lords will agree with us that we, as a Ministry, are in a fiduciary position. On those grounds, I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will permit me to intervene for a few moments to bring before your Lordships the grievances to which a portion of the inhabitants of the County of Cumberland think that they will be subjected under this Bill. In introducing this measure, the noble Earl pointed out that the greater part of it was consolidation. With regard to that we have, of course, no objection whatever to make. There are some new clauses, to which he referred, dealing with the pollution of rivers and the constitution of fishery boards, and to these we have no objection. But with regard to the position of the fishermen in the Solway, not only has no provision whatever been made, but such rights as they now have are filched from them by this Bill. The noble Earl pointed out that —I think he said twenty, but he was not quite accurate; there are only nineteen—nineteen Acts are repealed, and the one Act which Parliament has passed in favour of the fishermen of the Solway, namely, the Act of 1907, for which they had been struggling for a hundred years, stands amongst those proposed to be repealed.
I am afraid it is a very long story, and I should be sorry to inflict it at any length upon your Lordships. It begins really over a hundred years ago. Many of your Lordships, probably all, have read Scott's celebrated novel "Redgauntlet." Your Lordships will still remember the incidents that are described, and how, in consequence

293
of the unfair treatment of the Englishmen by the Scotsmen, raids were made by the Englishmen against the stake nets in Scotland. That grievance, existing in 1804, continued during a number of years and there were constant quarrels during the whole of the nineteenth century between the Scottish and English fishermen fishing on either side of the Solway. There have been a series of investigations by Committees, Commissions and so forth, with a view to remedying this grievance. On every occasion the grievance has been admitted.
I have here the Report of an investigation which was ordered and was made in 1880 by Messrs. Walpole & Young, and it states the case so admirably that I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I read it as it stands in the Blue-book, although the passage is a rather long one:—
"Two Acts of Parliament, superseding the old law of close season fixed in 1804, had thus brought conflicting close seasons into force on the two sides of the Solway. The English Act of 1861 had instituted a weekly close season of forty-two hours on the English side of the Solway. The Scotch Act of 1862 instituted a weekly close season of thirty-six hours on the Scotch side. The English Act of 1861 prohibited the use of any net for taking salmon whose mesh was less than 2 inches from knot to knot or 8 inches round. A by-law, made under the authority of the Scotch Act of 1862, prohibited the use of all nets for catching salmon whose mesh was less than 1¾ inches from knot to knot or 7 inches round. These Acts thus effectually introduced discordant law on the two sides of the Solway Firth. In some parts of the firth the difference was immaterial. The Solway between Dumfries-shire and Cumberland is a narrow bay, which at low water dwindles into a contracted channel, fordable in some places. The Solway on the contrary, west of this line, opens out into a broad firth, the two shores of which are separated by a wide interval of sea. There was and is little or no objection to the existence of different laws on the two sides of the firth where it is broad. There is and always was great inconvenience in the maintenance of different laws on the two sides of the firth where it is narrow. In the former case, the fishermen of the two sides rarely come into contact and never interfere with each other; in the latter, they frequently meet and their conflicting interests, as the law at present stands, tend to engender and maintain considerable animosity and bitterness of feeling."
I regret to say that animosity and bitterness of feeling still continue, and I hope the Ministry by this Bill will take some steps to bring this anomaly to an end, and to bring about a better state of feeling.
A special Commission was appointed in 1865, the object of which was to regulate stake nets or fixed engines on either side
294
of the Solway. My Cumberland friends hoped to derive considerable advantage from that fact and that all nets found to be illegal on either side would be removed, and that only fixed engines which were legal would be permitted to remain. What happened? As soon as the Commission went down there the Scotsmen took objection that the Commission was not entitled to deal with Scottish fixed engines at all. Their view was supported by the Law Officers of the day, and therefore the Commissioners never interfered with the stake nets on the Scottish side and proceeded to abolish the whole of the stake nets on the English side. At the present day the Scotsmen have fixed engines all along their shore, and the unfortunate Cumberland fishermen have not a single fixed engine. That is a severe handicap. I have already pointed out the difference in close times. That still remains and is a severe handicap, while the difference in machine also still remains and is a severe handicap.
Sir H. Maxwell, in 1892, was appointed chairman of a Committee to inquire into troubles in the Solway relating to white fish, but so much did his Commission feel the strength of the case of the Cumberland men with regard to salmon trout that, although it was not directly within the terms of their reference, they went out of their way to report upon the unsatisfactory state of things in the Solway owing to the difference in the fishery laws in the English and Scottish waters. I need hardly say, however, that nothing was done. In the year 1895 Sir Stafford Howard was chairman of a Committee which again inquired into the whole subject and made certain recommendations. Their recommendations were that stake nets should be re-erected on the British side so as, by letting them out, to form a fund out of which the stake nets on the Scottish side might be bought out. That seemed to offer some ray of hope for the Cumberland fishermen. These proposals were converted into the Act of 1907, and the fishery board was given power to take action, but now the noble. Lord comes along and obliterates the one ray of hope contained in the Act of 1907, because that Act is one of the Acts to be repealed. These unfortunate men, therefore, will be left even without the possibility of that remedy.
That is how the matter stands. I am speaking, I may say, on behalf of the Corporation of Carlisle who have very large

295
interests in that district; on behalf of the noble Lord in this House who owns, I believe, what is technically called a several fishery, for which in years past he has had to fight, and upon the determination of his claims, which have been admitted repeatedly in the Law Courts, he and his ancestors have spent sums of money amounting to well over £15,000. I am also speaking on behalf of the lessee of these fisheries and of the commoners of the manor along that portion of Cumberland, who claim common rights to exercise fishing in that district. The noble Earl, in his concluding words, spoke, I thought very properly, of the position of the Ministry. He said they were bound to protect public rights, but he was only thinking of the public rights of the fishermen and persons in the upland rivers. He had forgotten the public rights of those at the mouth of the river—long established rights, exercised for centuries, which it is proposed partly to sweep away and partly to leave in the very unsatisfactory state to which I have called your Lordships' attention.
I propose to submit, when we reach Committee stage, a series of Amendments which I hope the Ministry may accept. They seem to me to be reasonable, and they are framed with a desire that they shall he upon most reasonable lines. It would be perfectly possible to ask your Lordships to exclude from this Bill the whole area of the Solway. I do not propose to do that, because I think it would be unsatisfactory to leave this portion of the fishing grounds of England without any legislation for its control. But what I do propose to do (and I think your Lordships will admit that it is a perfectly reasonable proposal) is to assimilate the English law in that district with the Scottish law, which prevails immediately opposite—two or three miles only, in fact, across the water. The only answer which I can conceive that the noble Earl will make to me is that this is a matter which might well be dealt with by the Eden Fishery Board.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I thought I should get that reply. But does the noble Earl know how the Eden Fishery Board is composed? How many representatives of these fishermen are there on the Eden Fishery Board? Only two. The upland fishermen are represented by twenty members. The two unfortunate representatives
296
of the Solway net fishermen never have a chance, and the probability is that this fishery board, so far from shortening the close time and putting it on a level with the Scottish close time, will lengthen it in the interests of the anglers who fish the upper waters. I have no confidence in that fishery board in that particular respect, and I feel pretty certain that I shall be able to convince your Lordships, when we reach the Committee stage, that the really fair thing to do—seeing that the position is a rare and unique one, that this is the only part of England when we are brought into direct conflict with our neighbours across the border in Scotland—is by Statute in that exceptional case to fix the close times and the sizes of the mesh. At all events I shall, when the proper time comes, make my appeal, and I hope that I shall not appeal in vain to your Lordships.
I do not say that this Bill is designed entirely on behalf of the anglers and in respect of sport, although I think, if I wished to make that point, I could have founded myself on a good deal that fell from the noble Earl, when he referred to the necessity of preserving the amenities of sport, and talked a good deal about poachers, and pools, and so forth. But let me say that his Ministry is just as much concerned for the commercial fishermen as for the sportsmen. The commercial fishermen, after all, make a livelihood by fishing, and are responsible for putting far more fish on the market, and thus adding to the food supply, than are those gentlemen who go out for their own amusement, and who now and again send a salmon to their friends.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, as chairman of a fishery board I want, without reflecting on any of the noble Earl's predecessors, to say how glad I am that he is now representing the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in your Lordships' House. Our fishery board have found him, representing a Government Department, to be in full sympathy with our desire to see the waters of this country in a proper condition for the production of fish life. I do not think the aspersion (if I may so call it) thrown on the noble Earl by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, is justified, because in supporting fishery boards, as I think the noble Earl has done and is doing by the introduction of this Bill, he shows himself alive to the very fact upon which some stress has been laid—

297
namely, that the commercial fishermen are those to whom we ought to pay the greatest attention. And I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture do recognise that it is the food of the country, and not the sport of the private riparian owner, which is important.
This Bill is long overdue. For a long time the board on which I have had a seat for many years have had great difficulty in preventing the pollution of the river Tees. In the north of our county, the County of Durham, we have seen the river Tyne gradually destroyed as a salmon river by pollution. We have watched the increased amount of pollution going into our river, and we have recognised that if this pollution continues it will be only a few years before the Tees will follow the example of the Tyne, and, instead of being a first-class salmon river, which it might be, will become nothing more than a dirty sewer in a great many of its reaches.
Our difficulty as a fishery board has been that the laws affecting us have been almost incomprehensible to the ordinary layman. There have been nineteen Statutes, and in many cases they differ so much from one another in language that the ordinary layman who serves on a fishery board is perfectly bewildered, and does not know what the law really is. This Bill is an attempt to consolidate the law, and I believe it makes the law clear to the average man. That is a great advance, which will be much appreciated by the fishery boards of this country. We have hitherto been prevented by the administration of the law from stopping the pollution of our English rivers. It has been almost impossible for us to secure convictions, although it was obvious that the intention of Parliament in 1861 was to enable convictions to be obtained and to prevent the pollution of the rivers of this country. Under the existing law it is almost impossible to prove that a particular fish which may be found dead in the river or in the estuary was killed by a particular poison inserted at a particular point above the place where that fish has been found. The individual who may be prosecuted for putting poisonous matter into a river can always allege that the quantity of water mixed with the poisonous matter is so great that the poison has not really affected any fish which may be found dead on the river banks or in the river.
There is another cause of a great deal of the pollution which from time to time we have observed in the river Tees. We
298
have now and then found hundreds of salmon turned up and washed on to the banks below the points where certain effluents have got into the river, and it is alleged by those who have put the poison into the stream that that poison is not absolutely obnoxious to fish life, and that if you put the fish into that particular effluent the fish still live. What really occurs from the discharge of many of these effluents into rivers is that a chemical action takes place in the river which withdraws a certain amount of oxygen from the rivers and the fish die after the poison has been placed in the water. The chemical action in the water really suffocates the fish by an indirect and not a direct effect. In this matter the law is unsatisfactory and, although we know where the poison is inserted in our rivers and that at certain periods of the year, especially when the water is low, we are bound to have great mortality in our Salmon and trout, rivers, we are unable, in the present state of the law, to obtain a conviction or to restrain individuals from putting polluting materials into the rivers.
During the past few months I have had the privilege of sitting on the Committee to which the noble Earl alluded. We have as members of that Committee, as the noble Earl has stated, scientific gentlemen who have helped us enormously in our discussions; we have also representatives of the traders and of angling associations. We are all agreed that it is desirable that the law should be altered, and altered in the way which is proposed by this Bill. It is because we have endeavoured to meet one another around the table and to come to a general acquiescence in regard to the alteration of the law—and I believe the alterations proposed in the Bill will be to the general advantage of the whole country—that I ask your Lordships to pass this Bill into law during the present session.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of asking a Question of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. Having expressed a very strong desire to avoid arousing unduly the hostility of the great traders of this country—a feeling we all share with hirn—he went on to say, as I understood him, that they were hopeful at the Ministry of coming to some sort of agreement or compromise with some of the traders somewhat on the lines, I

299
presume, of a differentiation in the penalties attaching to the offence as between manufacturers already existing and putting their poisonous effluents into the water and new businesses b: ought into existence. I do not know whether what I understood my noble friend to say is correct, but if it is, I would venture to point out to him and to the Government that they could not possibly make a greater mistake than to do that; nor could they act more unfairly by those who are suffering under this difficulty at the present time. In many cases where the evil of poisoned rivers exists, every effort has been made to deal with it and to stop it under the existing law, and the experience of my noble friend Lord Gainford is the general one—that it is impossible to stop this poisoning of the rivers and to secure the conviction of those who are responsible for the evil. Surely those who have been causing this great evil for a very considerable time are not entitled to more gentle treatment or to greater consideration than those who start it after the passing of this Bill.
So far the Bill has been debated solely from the point of view of fisheries, but I would like to remind your Lordships that the same deleterious matter which renders a river poisonous to fish, in many cases makes it a perfect curse to the district through which it runs, because it affects other things besides fish; and the same difficulty arises when you try to put the law into force. I hope that my friends at the Ministry will keep a very stiff upper lip in dealing with the people who cause scandals of this kind, because it is surely a common elementary proposition that while people are entitled to run their businesses with the best result to themselves, they can only do that so long as they do not injure their neighbours. In this case grave injury results to their neighbours. For the protection of farmers raising stock on the banks of a brook which is infected in this manner the present law is almost useless, and if this legislation is persisted in I hope that the elementary principle to which I have referred will be respected by the Ministry—namely, that while there is no desire to injure the industries of the country, there is a very strong desire that those industries should be carried on in such a way as to cause no injury to others.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I should like to suggest one small Amendment in the Bill in order that it may cover rainbow
300
trout. As your Lordships know, the time for the spawning of the rainbow trout is different from that of the ordinary brown trout. The rainbow trout spawns, I am informed, from somewhere about the beginning of January to the end of May. I was myself spawning rainbow trout some four weeks ago. That being so, the close times laid down in Clauses 31 and 32 of the Bill are not so applicable to rainbow trout as they are to brown trout. I hope, therefore, that some alteration will be made in the Bill in respect of that close time to cover rainbow trout.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is entitled "An Act to make further provision with respect to the qualifications of Judges of High Courts in British India." Some difficulty has arisen, I understand, from the fact that, under the Government of India Act, one of the qualifications for the appointment of a Judge to the High Court is that he should have been enrolled as a pleader of the High Court for ten years. As your Lordships ' know, there have been recent changes in India, one of which is the substitution of High Courts for Chief Courts in some of the Provinces. The result of a too strict interpretation of the Act might be—and I believe that it has been found so to work —that these pleaders would be disqualified for some ten years after the constitution of the High Courts from being eligible for Judgeships of a High Court. This Bill declares, in effect, that these pleaders shall be able to count towards their ten years the years in which they were pleaders before the Chief Courts. Another object of the Bill is to remove certain doubts that have arisen as to the validity of a temporary appointment to a Judgeship in the High Court of the Punjab. Those are, shortly, the two points on which I venture to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ALLOTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, the Committee stage of this Bill has been postponed to Tuesday, May 23.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER had given Notice, on the Motion, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee, to move, That the Order of Thursday last, committing the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House this day be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Motion I have to make is that the House do now resolve itself into Committee. After what has passed it reference to sending the Bill to the Consolidation Bill Committee I do not think it is necessary for me to make any further remarks on the subject. I shall afterwards move the Amendment which is on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Comniittee.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I now beg to propose the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("the Order of Thursday last, committing the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House this day be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.")—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to, and Bill referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

RUSSIA: MILITARY MOVEMENTS AND THE FAMINE.
LORD TREOWEN LORD TREOWEN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any information concerning the reported concentration of Soviet troops towards
302
the Russian frontier of Poland, and the effect that the appropriation of rolling stock for the purpose of the movement of troops and military stores has had in the work of famine relief organisations, and on the transportation of imported food; and further, whether they can give any information as to the present conditions in the famine area, and as to the reported extension of that area in Russia.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to put the Question which stands in my name. The first part of it, as your Lordships will observe, refers to reports in regard to military movements on the western frontier of Russia. Those movements have not been much noticed in the Press, but I have received information' from various sources, and I have little doubt that concentrations of troops have been taking place in the neighbourhood of Minsk and Smolensk, and that there have been other movements nearer to the frontier than those places. I need not insist upon the serious character of such reports as those at a time like the present when we know that Europe is looking for some approach to peace. If the reports be true—and I certainly have such evidence as points to their being true—those concentrations are a menace to Poland, and a serious danger to the peace of Europe.
Your Lordships are well aware that I have taken a considerable interest in the fortunes of that gallant little country, Poland, and that I have on more than one occasion been permitted, by your Lordships' indulgence, to bring matters connected with Poland before your Lordships' House. I do not propose now, for obvious reasons, to go into questions which might arise out of such reports as those I have mentioned. One does not wish, at a time like this, to raise controversial questions which are European in their character, but I would say on behalf of Poland that it is very hard for a country which is making grave struggles, is showing wonderful powers of recuperation, and is establishing itself, in spite of the greatest difficulty, in the position in which the Concert of Europe has placed it, that it should be subjected to such a menace as is indicated in these reports. My noble friend the Chief Commissioner of Works is to reply for His Majesty's Government, and I shall be glad if he can give us some assurance that there is no serious intention behind these movements. If there is no truth in these reports,

303
and if he can give evidence that there is no truth in them, that cannot do anything but good.
But apart from those who, like myself, are interested very strongly in the fortunes of Poland—and I think there are many people who are so interested, and who still have a memory for the little countries for which we fought and bled—there is a very large mass of opinion in this country interested in what is being done for the relief of the famine areas in Russia. These areas, as my Question indicates, are being seriously interfered with by the movement to which I have referred. It will be within your Lordships' memory that only a few months ago Parliament voted some £200,000 for the assistance of the British organisation at work in Russia. I am glad to see in his place my noble friend Lord Weardale, who has taken so much interest in, and done so much for, one of those great organisations, and I hope that he may be able to give some confirmation of what I am about to tell your Lordships regarding the interference that has occurred in administering the famine relief. I have heard of this interference from both Englishmen and Americans. The Americans, as your Lordships know, have also taken great interest in the terrible condition of affairs in Russia, and have expended very large sums there.
Reports have reached me to the effect that a very large proportion of the £750,000 worth of goods sent out by organisations in this country in the last two or three months are lying on the quays off the various ports in Russia, and cannot be moved for want of rolling stock, which has been deliberately taken away and is being used, as I am informed, for military purposes. I have also seen a report that no fewer than 10,000 wagons with goods sent by the American relief agencies are stranded for want of locomotives. At one place fifty-eight trains are at the present moment left at a single junction because the locomotives have been taken away, and are being employed in moving the military. The impediments that have been placed in the way of relief by the Soviet authorities are most serious. I am informed that instead of there being an extension of relief such as was hoped for during the present month, the relief for children is being very seriously restricted and that the programme which it was hoped would have been started last month has been
304
altogether stopped. I ask the Government to give such information as they can upon this subject which interests a very large number of people, and to give us an assurance that they will use their influence in any direction that is possible. I do not know in what manner they may do that. I believe there is an international organisation at Geneva, the Red Cross Society, and that the League of Nations itself has been interested in the matter. It may be possible for them to bring some pressure to bear on the aliens who are at present controlling the destinies of the Russian people and enable the work of international charity to be carried out.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether it would be convenient, before the noble Earl replies to the Question, that some opinion should be expressed from this side of the House. Some of your Lordships may have conversed with gentlemen who came back from Versailles and Spa, and other places where Conferences have been held, and have come up against a sort of constant propaganda to the effect that the Poles are an impossible people and that it is no use attempting to assist them. Not only have you the facts testified to by the noble Lord who has just spoken, but if credible reports are to be believed, far from their being an impossible people they have been making the most efficient and heroic efforts, in great difficulties, to establish the State which has been created out of the fragments of ancient Poland.
The point I wish to press before the Question is answered is that this newly reconstituted State of Poland has been reconstituted by the Powers of Europe not entirely from visionary and idealistic motives, not from the impulse of altruism, but very much in their own interests. It. has been created, reconstructed, and inserted between the two potentially great Powers of Russia and Germany as what is habitually known as a "buffer State." The position of a "buffer State" is not, in history, apt to be excessively comfortable or easy. The history of Belgium shows what is apt to be the condition of what is called the "Cockpit of Europe." It was our interest that made us the guarantors of the independence of Belgium; it was our honour that made us stand by and see to the execution of that guarantee.
Ever since the middle ages, since British wool was necessary to Flemish

305
manufacturers, it has been the interest of England to see to the independence and integrity of the Low Countries. It made England keep up her end against Philip II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and twentieth century Germany. Though it was our interest which made us guarantors it was our honour which made us step in and give material aid and assistance. In like manner, as regards Poland, the existence of Poland as a buffer State, its security, and its ability to do the duties which we expect it to do in the interests of European peace, are matters of European concern, and affect our honour as well as our interest.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's Question regarding the movement of troops on the Russian frontier of Poland, the Foreign Office believes that a slight increase of troops in the west of Russia has taken place since the beginning of the year, and that one class has been partially mobilised in the Western districts, though, I fancy, that this class was, in any case, due to be called up during the spring. The noble Lord also asks for assurances as to the underlying intentions of the Russian Government. It is very difficult for the Government to answer a question of that character, but there can be no doubt at all as to the desire of his Majesty's Ministers, which is to spare no effort in trying to promote pacification between these newly formed countries where the conditions have not yet so stablished themselves as to give an assurance of peace. I cannot follow Lord Stuart of Wortley in the extremely interesting and significant analysis he made of the present situation, beyond repeating that it is common knowledge that the Prime Minister and his colleagues, now in conference in Italy, have been using their utmost endeavours to bring about more peaceful conditions in the Central districts of Europe.
I now turn to the part of the noble Lord's Question relating to internal conditions in Russia. The information at the disposal of the Government confirms what the noble Lord said, that a certain amount of delay experienced by relief organisations has been due to rolling stock being used for military purposes. It is clear, however, that the main cause of trouble in obtaining transport was the decision of the Russian Government that all their available rolling stock, until April 20, should be used for the movement of seed grain down to the
306
famine areas. Lord Treowen mentioned that stocks of merchandise were lying on the quays. I dare say that may still be true, but recent reports indicate that supplies are now going through and reaching their destination much more promptly than was the case a few weeks ago. The fact that the Government concentrated its rolling stock on moving seed grain to the famine areas may clearly have caused difficulty and distress at the present moment amongst those who wanted the actual goods, but from the broader point of view there can be no question that preparation for the next harvest is of incalculable importance.
As to the conditions in the famine areas so far as the Foreign Office is concerned I confess that it is difficult to give information which one can be quite certain is accurate. We received in April a report from one of the affected districts in which it is stated that the famine conditions were actually increasing in intensity, and that fifty per cent. of the population required assistance. That, of course, is inherent in the situation; the further you travel from the previous crop the greater must be the strain upon the balance which remains. Since last summer the famine has spread from the Volga area to the Southern Ukraine, and as far west as Odessa. It is reported that conditions in these areas are bad. It is feared that the loss of life there may be heavy, as most of the foreign relief work has been carried on in the area of the Volga.
It is a good deal too soon to make any predictions as to the prospects for the coming year. The American Relief Association has made great efforts and the Soviet Government likewise has done its utmost to fulfil the programme drawn up last winter for spring sowing, but the-Foreign Office has no reliable figures to show how far that programme has hem carried out. It is, however, feared that owing to congestion on the railways the amount of seed corn which did reach the famine area in time will have fallen short of what was required.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, I naturally do not propose to say muck about the first part of my noble friend's. Question, which refers to Poland, except that I would ask him to remember that there is something to be said on both sides in that matter. We all welcome the reconsitution of Poland as a State, we hope am increasingly prosperous State; but Poland

307
in its recent acts has not been altogether observant of what might be considered a question of self-determination, and I think we can hardly regard with a friendly eye the action of Poland with regard to Vilna, where she had defied the judgment of the League of Nations. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot pronounce that entirely favourable judgment upon the present conduct of affairs in Poland which the noble Lord has been able to give us to-day.
I take up more particularly the question of famine conditions in Russia, with which I have some familiarity, and I am glad to be able to say that in the case of the Government of Saratov, in which I am more particularly interested, our supplies, although they have been held up have arrived, on the whole, with fair regularity. But the last two or three months, as the noble Earl very properly stated, brought very great difficulties in dealing with the traffic, in consequence of the movement of seed to the famine districts. This entailed a special call upon the rolling stock not only of Russia but of the Baltic Governments, for, though it was landed chiefly at Riga and Libau, great quantities have been landed in the southern ports on the Black Sea and are being conveyed to the different areas affected. In a letter dated so late as the eighteenth of last month, we have the agreeable intelligence that something like 30 per cent. more cultivable area for the next harvest has now been, at all events, provided for, if not sown, and that the prospects are, therefore, on the whole, better.
The season has been particularly favourable. The snows have melted slowly and the ground has been in quite exceptional condition for seeding. There is, of course, a great lack of the ordinary instruments of agriculture, a great want of horses and of all animals for traction, but, on the whole, there is a better prospect for the future harvest than existed some two or three months ago. With respect to rolling stock, we have advices to the effect that since the middle of last month there has been a manifest improvement in the movements of supplies to the famine area. Certainly, in our own district of Saratov, where we are now feeding 300,000 children and something like 250,000 adults, the food has, on the whole, been delivered with fair regularity, and though I am not in the least a friend of the Bolshevist authorities, we must tell the truth in these matters and admit that
308
the amount of pilferage has been extremely small. When I say that the loss during the whole period has been slightly under 1 per cent. only, I think it will be agreed that it is a very satisfactory record. Very useful support has also been given by the local authorities to the distribution of relief, and consequently we have grounds for the belief that the money which has been so generously subscribed in this country for these purposes is being properly applied, and that large measures of relief are now in progress. Of course, British relief is small in comparison with what has been done by the Americans, who are dealing practically with the whole famine area, and have very rightly monopolised a great proportion of the rolling stock. The chief difficulty, I understand, is the absence of locomotives. Wagons are, I will not say sufficient, but nearly adequate, but locomotives are specially lacking, and many of them, of course, are in a most dilapidated condition.
That is the chief difficulty, but I am assured from the same sources as I have already quoted that it is not quite the case that the movement of these stores has been interfered with to any considerable extent by military objects. There has been, perhaps, the transfer of a certain number of troops to the Polish frontier, but not in a very great degree. The chief obstacle, as has been stated by the noble Earl, has been the movement of seed corn to the famine area and, that movement having now been accomplished, we may, I think, look forward with hope to the supply of food to the famine area without any considerable delay. It is true that some of our stores have taken as long as four months to go from Riga to Saratov, a journey that should, in ordinary circumstances, take six days. But that condition of affairs is happily passing away, and I am very glad to be able to assure the House that, so far as we are able to judge at the present moment, the work of relief is being carried on with, on the whole, hopeful prospects.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to support what Lord Weardale has said, because I have had an opportunity of direct information both from the famine districts and from Moscow. May I congratulate the noble Earl who answered the Question on behalf of the Government, regarding what he said as to the necessity of general pacification, which is, of course,

309
what we all want in Central and Eastern Europe? I believe that it is true that wagons and transport were, for a time, not used directly for food transport but for seed transport, but every one must realise that that was a proper use. I am sure the noble Lord who brought forward the Question will feel that.
I had a message the other day from the head of the American Relief Board in Moscow. The Americans are hoping that between now and the next harvest—because, as the noble Earl has said, the nearer you get to the next harvest the further you get from the supplies of the last harvest—according to the figures sent to me, the Americans are hoping to feed no fewer than 10,000,000 people, adults and children. That is, of course, an amount of relief work entirely beyond what we have done from this country, not only Owing to the much larger private funds which have come from America, but also because the Government themselves gave 20,000,000 dollars towards this work. The view which was expressed to me was this. One need not go back to the horrors of the famine, but it is true that there are large famine areas, including probably about nine million people, to whom no relief has been sent. That is owing to the impossibility of extending relief over an area comprising about 25,000,000 inhabitants. I should like to say, in reference to what has been said by a noble Lord, that there is every prospect of a reasonably good harvest this year. That is to say, there has been a very large distribution of seed, and the weather conditions are exceptionally favourable. I should like also to state in praise of the Russian peasant, that although the peasant himself is starving, yet he has sown the seed in order that the conditions may be better in the future; and I am told that if there is a reasonably good harvest this year the famine conditions may come to an end with that new harvest. Of course, that is extremely important.
One word further as regards the action of the Soviet Government. From all the reports that have conic to me I think that the Soviet Government has done its best in difficult circumstances. It has been alleged more than once that there have been losses through the negligence of the Soviet Government as regards goods sent from this country to the famine districts, but in reference to the statistics quoted by Lord Weardale, the percentage of losses in
310
Russia has been far less than the average of losses in the carriage of goods in this country. The reason is that all these goods are sealed up in special wagons, which are only opened under special conditions, and so the opportunity for ordinary pilfering is very limited. I have no doubt that that was quite necessary, when it is remembered that these goods were being sent through famine districts, where the people were perishing from hunger. I wanted to make this statement because I do not think the difficulty arises from the concentration of troops in the Polish area, but owing to other conditions. Although present conditions must to a certain extent get worse before the new harvest, yet there is hope and prospect that with the new harvest famine may be relieved and come to an end.
[From Minutes of May 4.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered except to members of the Committee and to such persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.
FIFE TRUST ESTATE.
Petition for a Bill, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English Judges.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; The Orders made on the 31st of March and the 10th of April last discharged, and Bill committed.
THE LORD SPEAKER acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Port of London and Midland Railway.

Northampton Corporation.

Sunderland and South Shields Water.

Metropolitan Railway.

Sheffield Gas Company.

Worthing Corporation.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at five minutes before o'clock.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
PADIHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

CHILD MURDER (TRIAL) BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next (Lord Parmoor).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Newcastle and Gateshead Water.

South Staffordshire Water.

Birmingham Corporation.

Staffordshire Asylums.

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wolverhampton Extension).
And also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BLACK COUNTRY TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on April 10 last appointing certain Lords a Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for Additional Provision in the

Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners (Re constitution) Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the Additional Provision:
And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for the
Exeter Corporation Bill
ought to be dispensed with.
Read, and agreed to.

LEICESTER FREEMEN BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
CITY OF LONLON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUILDFORD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
Committee to meet on Thursday next.
RHONDDA (PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS).
Committee for Privileges to meet on Thursday, May 18, at half-past ten o'clock.