Sitting of 10 May 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ossett Corporation Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Melville Trust Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Water) Bill,
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

MINISTRY or HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Ashton-under-Lyne, Greenford, Ilfracombe, Margate, and New Mills," presented by Sir ALFRED MOND; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  CHINA (EDUCATION).
  Mr. L. MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs where the Committee appointed to consider the question of the education of Chinese on British lines is holding its meetings; and whether he will give the names of those who constitute the Committee?
  Earl WINTERTON (for Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The Committee meets at the Foreign Office. It is constituted as follows:

  Sir John Jordan, G.C.M.G., K.C.B. (Chairman);

  Sir Samuel Hoare, C.M.G., M.P.;

  Sir William Clark, K.C.S.I., C.M.G., Comptroller-General of the Department of Overseas Trade;

  Sir Charles Addis, K.C.M.G., of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank;

  Mr. Victor Wellesley, C.B., of the Foreign Office;

  Dr. R. P. Scott, of the Board of Education;

  Mr. F. Anderson, of the China Association.

  SPAIN (COMMERCIAL TREATY).
  Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is in force a commercial treaty between Britain and Spain; if not, whether one is contemplated or under discussion; and by what date it is proposed that it shall become operative?
  Earl WINTERTON: The present position is governed by an exchange of Notes between the Spanish and British Governments of 1894, by virtue of which the products and manufactures of the United Kingdom enjoy the lower rates of the second column of the Spanish tariff as well as any reduction of those rates which may be granted by Spain to other European States by treaty. Negotiations are now in progress with the Spanish Government for the conclusion of a commercial treaty. It is not possible at this moment to forecast the date when such treaty may come into force.
  Mr. SAMUEL: How long has the discussion been going on; and has any complaint been received from those engaged in British trade as to the treatment of their trade by the Spanish authorities in the immediate past?
  Earl WINTERTON: I can imagine nothing less calculated to bring about a treaty than to raise such a question at the moment when a treaty is under negotiation.

  CONSULAR SERVICE (MR. GANN).
  Lieut.-Colonel HURSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the recommendations made by His Majesty's Minister at Berne and of His Majesty's Consul-General at Zurich in favour of the continued employment of Mr. Vice-Consul Gann, late of the Dover Patrol, in the Consular Service; whether he is acquainted with this officer's long record of consular, naval, and intelligence work; on what grounds was he removed from his post at Zurich; whether in making displacements of this character he has regard to war services; and, if so, why 27 men of military age, but of no war service, received Consular posts at or about the same date as Mr. Gann's dismissal?
  Earl W1NTERTON: I am aware of Mr. Gann's record and his qualifications including the fact that he had war service. They were fully considered at the time of his application for admission to the permanent Consular Service in 1918. Mr. Gann's employmentin His Majesty's Consulate-General at Zurich was of a temporary character and, as in the case of other temporary appointments, was terminated when the necessity for it ceased to exist. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to the Member for Canterbury on 29th March last.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    JUTLAND BATTLE (GERMAN TORPEDOES).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the total number of torpedoes fired by the German fleet at the battle of Jutland and the average range can be approximately stated; and whether the figures can be sub-divided between capital ships and torpedo craft, together with the number of hits recorded against the British Fleet?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Approximately, 66 torpedoes fired by the German Fleet were seen by His Majesty's ships. Two hits were recorded against the British Fleet. The number of torpedoes fired from enemy capital ships
    2160
    cannot be stated, but the percentage is estimated to be small. An official German report on the Battle of Jutland gives the total number of torpedoes fired as 107, but does not state how many of these were fired from capital ships. According to this report, the ranges at which torepdoes were fired from the destroyer flotillas varied between 10,000 and 6,000 yards.
    Mr. MALONE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the Admiralty had not dropped the development of torpedo-carrying aircraft there would not have been so many German ships to fire torpedoes?

    PRIZE MONEY.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any applications have been made by discharged, demobilised, or retired naval ratings, who are unemployed or in necessitous circumstances, for an immediate payment of the prize money which is due to them; and, if so, whether he will see that priority is given to these individual claims before payments are made to men now actively employed in His Majesty's ships?
    Mr. AMERY: Arrangements have been made to give priority in cases of special necessity.

    GIBRALTAR (SUMMIT SIGNAL STATION).
    Mr. MALONEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it has been decided to discontinue the firing of the sunrise and sunset gun, popularly known as morning and evening gunfire, from the sgnal station on the summit of the rock of Gibraltar; what annual saving is thereby effected; is he aware of the inconvenience caused by the abolition of the signal of closing the frontier gates, etc.; whether this signal station is to be totally abandoned: whether this station, in addition to other duties, reported passing and incoming shipping, town and harbour fires, wrecks, etc.; and, if so, who is now responsible for these duties?
    Mr. AMERY: As the Summit Signal Station is frequently hidden in mist it-has been decided to abolish it and transfer its duties to the Windmill Hill Signal Station. The firing from Summit Hill, the cost of which was about £190 a year, has, therefore, been discontinued. I

    2161
    understand, however, that if after a month's trial it is found that the resumption of the time guns is desirable, the military authorities will assume responsibility for them.

    OFFICERS (SEASON TICKETS).
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the regulations governing the repayment of the cost of season tickets for officials on transfer from one establishment to another will be extended to officers and chief and petty officers of the Royal Navy similarly situated?
    Mr. AMERY: Season tickets are only granted to civilian officials in lieu of the removal expenses for their families, furniture, etc., to which they are entitled on transfer from one establishment to another. Royal Naval personnel on transfer from one appointment to another are entitled only to free conveyance for themselves and personal baggage, and the question of removal expenses does not, therefore, arise. I regret that in the present state of public finance, it is not possible to contemplate the grant of season tickets to naval personnel between their old homes and new place of duty in the circumstances.

    RAILWAY PASSES.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the recent concession instituted as a permanent measure by Admiralty Fleet Order No. 555 of 1922, authorising the issue of a free railway pass to enable the nearest relative and one other to visit dockyard workmen injured on duty when they are employed at a distance from their own yards, will be extended to the relatives of men of the Royal Navy injured on duty?
    Mr. AMERY: Authority already exists under Admiralty Order No. 328/20 for the grant of free railway warrants to not more than two relatives for the purpose of visiting naval ratings who are dangerously ill in hospital, and this concession applies when the illness is due to injuries received on duty.

    SHIPS FOR SALE (MEDWAY).
    Captain BOWYERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is contemplated that
    2162
    the ships at present lying in the Medway for sale to be broken up will be sold to German firms for the purpose of breaking up in Germany; and whether the two ships "London" and "Venerable" have already been sold to German firms; and whether he knows the ultimate destination of these ships?
    Mr. AMERY: As these vessels become available for sale it is the intention to offer them to competitive tender for breaking up in this country as far as possible. Invitations for some of the vessels will be issued within the next few days. The "London" and "Venerable," which were sold to a British firm, have been very largely demolished here, and further work on them could only be carried out in this country at a loss. They are occupying valuable space, and hindering further shipbreaking work, and the Admiralty have accordingly agreed to the transfer of the hulks to Germany to complete breaking up, so that fresh work may be put in hand in this country.

    PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what saving would accrue in the Estimates, 1922–23 and 1923–24, if Pembroke Dockyard were abolished entirely; and what sum would probably be realised if this Government property were sold?
    Mr. AMERY: It is impossible to say what the saving would be during 1922–23 and 1923–24, as these figures would depend on whether Pembroke Dockyard is closed down or is disposed of to a commercial firm as a going concern, but the total annual saving that would result when either of the above had been completed is calculated at approximately £120,000, subject to a certain increase for some years on the non-effective Votes. No estimate can be given of the sum which would be realised if this Government property were sold, as it would entirely depend on the market, and up to the present there has been no commercial demand for this establishment.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Is not this dockyard entirely superfluous to the requirements of the Navy, and was its abolition actually recommended in the Geddes Report?
    Mr. AMERY: The national reason for the retention of the dockyard is set out, very fully, in the First Lord's Memorandum.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are there not naval reasons against retaining this dockyard?
    Mr. AMERY: From the purely naval point of view, there would be an economy in closing the dockyard.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Will the hon. Gentleman clearly state what other reasons there are for the retention of this dockyard?
    Mr. AMERY: They have been very fully stated.
    Mr. ROSE: Has the propriety of closing down all dockyards and sending the work to Messrs. Beardmore occurred to the Board of Admiralty?

  QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can furnish the House with any information as to schemes for settlement in the Queen Charlotte Islands?
  Mr. AMERY: The Overseas Settlement Committee are authoritatively advised that communication with these islands, which lie to the north of Vancouver Island, is difficult, that the population is small, and that the islands are not at present suitable to settlers from this country, except for stock raising and dairying, which could be made successful under proper management, but requires considerable capital. They have already issued a warning as regards settlement in these Islands, and they would urge any persons who may contemplate settling there to communicate with their secretary at 6, St. James's Square, before coming to any decision.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the land in the Queen Charlotte Islands owned by the State or by private persons?
  Mr. AMERY: I think a great deal of it is still Crown land—still under virgin forest.

  SEA AND AIR POWER (UNITED STATES).
  Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether steps can be taken to publish the Report of the Joint Army and Navy Board appointed by the United States Government to inquire into sea and air power as a White Paper?
  Mr. AMERY: I am afraid that owing to the expense involved the printing of this Report on the results of the United States bombing and gunfire experiments with ex-German ships would not be justified, especially as it was published in the American Press last autumn. I shall, however, be happy to supply typed copies to any hon. Members who may be interested.
  Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Report, not only deals with the bombing of ex-German ships, but also gives very valuable conclusions arrived at by the Committee set up by the United States Government?
  Mr. AMERY: It is a very interesting Report and I shall be very happy to send any hon. Member who likes to write to me, a typed copy.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Would it not be better to send a typed copy to the Library of the House of Commons?
  Mr. AMERY: Certainly.

  TRADE BOARDS.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a communication from the joint committee of London co-operative societies and the London district of the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers urging him to sign at the earliest possible moment the Trade Board rates for the grocery and provision trades; and whether, in view of the publication of the Cave Report on Trade Boards, he is now in a position to make a statement on this subject?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Yes, Sir. I am not, however, in a position to communicate with the Grocery and Provisions Trade Boards regarding the determination of minimum rates of wages now. I hope to be able to do so at an early date.
  Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling in the country arising out of his indecision in this matter; and when can we have a definite decision from him?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I must deal with this on the lines it is proposed to take with regard to what I may call the Cave recommendations. Until I have got them, I cannot communicate with the Boards. I will do so at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation during the present Session to give effect to the recommendations of Lord Cave's Committee on Trade Boards?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have given and am giving very careful consideration to the important recommendations of the Committee over which Lord Cave pie-sided. It is our intention to prepare a Bill dealing with the matters raised in the Report, and we hope that it may be possible to find time for its consideration during the present Session. I should like to take the public opportunity offered by this question to tender my thanks to Lord Cave and his Committee for the prompt and painstaking way in which they carried out the Commission I asked them to undertake.

  WAGES (AWARDS AND AGREEMENTS).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he has been made aware of the decision reached by the Association of Joint Industrial Councils and Interim Reconstruction Committees in favour of legislation being passed to give the necessary power to him to make binding upon the whole of any industry any wages awards or agreements, or arrangements as to working hours and conditions made or confirmed by joint industrial councils or interim reconstruction committees; and, if so, will he state his attitude towards such a decision?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware of the decision reached by the Association of Joint Industrial Councils. As has already been stated, the proposal for legislation to make joint industrial council agreements compulsory through-
  2166
  out an industry appears to require a greater measure of agreement by employers' and workers' organisations generally than has yet been signified.

  WOMEN HEALTH VISITORS (SALARIES).
  Mr. GALBRAITHasked the Minister of Health whether he has made any recommendation as to the salaries to be paid by local authorities to women health visitors; and, if so, whether he is satisfied that the salaries paid in accordance with his recommendation are adequate to secure efficient service?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I have made no general recommendation as to the salaries to be paid to health visitors, but in various particular cases I have taken action to secure such remuneration as will provide an efficient service.

  HOUSING.

    SWANSEA.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to reports of statements made by the local medical officer at a recent meeting of the Swansea Board of Guardians to the effect that many families were in the workhouse on account of being unable to find accommodation outside; that the evil of overcrowding is general in Swansea; that, in a case cited, eight families are paying £400 per annum for accommodation in one house, the standard rent of which is £45; and whether, in view of those disclosures, any action will be taken, in the interest of public health and for the protection of families compelled to accept accommodation as sub-tenants?
    Sir A. MOND: My attention has not previously been drawn to the statements of the local medical officer referred to, but I am aware of the housing conditions in Swansea. I have authorised the erection by the Swansea Corporation of 789 houses under the State-aided housing scheme, of which only 183 have hitherto been completed, and I am of opinion that the conditions mentioned will best be remedied by pressing on with the completion of the remaining houses.

    2167
    I may add, in reference to the last part of the question, that bye-laws made by the Town Council under Section 26 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1910, which are specially directed to this point, have recently come into force.

    COTTAGES (RENTALS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the decrease in the cost of living and in the wages of the workers, he will give favourable consideration to the suggestion now being made in several quarters that the Ministry of Health should take steps to secure a commensurate reduction in the rental of cottage property and prevent undue advantage being taken of the shortage of houses?
    Sir A. MOND: The suggestion of the hon. Member would require legislation which I do not see my way to introduce. The rate of rents of cottage property will, like the price of other commodities, have to follow economic laws.

    KINGSTON-ON-THAMES.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Kingston-on-Thames Corporation have houses ready for occupation which they are refusing to let; one instance is that of Mr. F. C. Widdicombe, of Bridge Cottage, Wooburn, Bucks, employed at Mount Pleasant post office; that the applicant, an ex-service man, applied to this authority on 30th March to be accepted as a tenant of one of the corporation's houses; that he was informed on 31st March that the houses are offered for sale and were not to let; and, in view of the fact that Mr. Widdicombe had to accept accommodation at Wooburn after demobilisation because of the impossibility of obtaining it nearer London, and that the requirements of the Post Office authorities necessitate that he should live nearer the post office at which he is employed, will he issue an order to this and other local authorities to the effect that where houses are ready for occupation suitable applicants should be permitted to occupy them regardless of whether the property is for sale or not?
    Sir A. MOND: I have inquired fully into this case and I am satisfied that it is one in which the local authority are able to dispose of the houses by early sale to intending occupiers; and it is in
    2168
    accordance with the policy of the Government that they should do so. I shall keep in touch with the local authority to ensure that as little delay as possible occurs in securing the occupation of the houses.
    Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the exact number of houses for which grants have been made in aid of buildings which have been held empty for sale for periods extending over 18 months, and does he consider that this state of things is a fair reflex of the desires and promises of the Government?
    Sir A. MOND: I am not aware of any-such cases. I do not believe they can exist. There are a very small number of houses empty in this case. One has been sold, and I am assured by the local authorities that they expect to dispose of the others at a very early date.

    BRADFORD.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Health, having regard to the fact that, according to the medical officer of health for Bradford, persons are paying as much as 7s. per week for a furnished cellar-dwelling of one room only which has been declared uninhabitable, that rooms are being sub-let at 4s. and 5s. a. week, that overcrowding and insanitary conditions are present and constantly increasing, that the Ministry of Health has only sanctioned the erection of 856 houses for which there are about 6,000 applicants, of whom 4,036 are ex-service men and of whom 3,245 are living in apartments, and that, as similar conditions more or less as bad obtain in various industrial areas, if he is now prepared to allow local authorities to continue to provide housing accommodation based on the proved facts of overcrowding according to the official standard?
    Sir A. MOND: I have recently authorised the local authority to which the hon. Member refers to obtain tenders for a further 50 houses in addition to the 854 already approved, and I have arranged for a deputation from the local authority to be received to-morrow, when any suggestion which they may wish to make will be fully considered. On the general question of an extension of the St ate-assisted housing scheme, I cannot add anything to the replies I have already given, but I shall be happy to

    2169
    entertain proposals from local authorities for building houses on their own responsibility.

    EDMONTON.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Edmonton District Council has notified the tenants on its housing estates that they must discontinue taking in lodgers or vacate their tenements; that there is at present a great shortage of housing accommodation which will be intensified if this decision is enforced; and if he proposes to make any representations to the district council on the subject?
    Sir A. MOND: I understand that in order to avoid overcrowding the Tenancy Agreement in the case of the houses in the Assisted Housing Scheme of the Edmonton Urban District Council provides that tenants shall not take in lodgers without the consent of the council and that the council are requiring compliance with this provision. While the matter is one which is within the discretion of the local authority, I will communicate with them on the subject.
    Sir F. HALL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's Department at the present time subsidising this district council; and, if so, to what extent?
    Sir A. MOND: Yes, certainly, but it is within the discretion of the local authority to make reasonable conditions. I do not think it is unreasonable that they should ask for their consent to be obtained to tenants taking lodgers.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is an enormous number of persons who are quite unable to obtain empty houses or apartments, and will he see what he can do with this district council?
    Sir A. MOND: Yes, certainly, I shall communicate with the local authority that their consent should not be unreasonably withheld. But we do not want houses to be overcrowded.

    NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, for the year 1920, in the city of Newcastle-on-Tyne, 843 births occurred in one-room dwellings and that 167 of those children died, mortality 198·1 per thousand; that 2,155 births occurred in two-room dwellings and that 291 died, which is 175·3 per thousand; that 1,529 children were born
    2170
    in three-room dwellings and that 171 died, being at the rate of 111 per thousand mortality; and, if these statements are true, will he try to put a stop to such a state of affairs by erecting more suitable homes for the poor?
    Sir A. MOND: I am aware of the report of the Medical Officer of Health of Newcastle containing the particulars in the first part of the question. The housing situation in Newcastle is that approval has been given under the local authorities' scheme for 1,003 houses, of which 482 have been completed, 289 are in various stages of construction, and 232 have not yet been commenced. I shall continue to keep the situation under careful review.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Are not the figures given for Newcastle-on-Tyne typical of the whole country wherever there is serious overcrowding?

  IMPURE MILK, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Health whether ho has yet taken any, and, if so, what steps to deal with the question of the sale of impure milk in Newcastle-on-Tyne, wherein it is stated on official authority that in the analysis and bacteriological examination of samples recently taken approximately 50 per cent, showed really serious pollution; and whether this serious menace to the health of the citizens will receive immediate attention and drastic treatment?
  Sir A. MOND: As I promised last week, a medical officer of my Department is now visiting Newcastle, and is inquiring into this matter.
  Sir J. RANDLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any Grade A milk available in the North of England suitable for this area?
  Sir A. MOND: I could not answer that without notice.

  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES ACT, 1919.
  Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the repeal of Part I of the Agriculture Act of 1920, and the necessity of drastic reduction in expenditure, it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation

  2171
  to repeal Parts II and III of The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919,?which set up councils and advisory committees for England and Wales and county agricultural committees.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I have been asked to reply. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation for the purpose indicated.
  Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: What public service is being performed by these various committees, in view of the fact that compulsory cultivation is done away with and that very substantial expense is caused to the taxpayers for the officials of these committees?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. and gallant Friend, I think, does not realise that, if legislation were carried on the lines he suggests, we should have to get rid of the Council of Agriculture for England, the Agricultural Advisory Committee, and all the agricultural committees of the county councils. I can only say that most of these bodies are doing very useful work.
  Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: But what useful purpose are they serving? They are costing a lot of money, and as all their duties are taken away, what are they doing?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This should be raised on the Estimates.

  RECORDER OF LOXDON.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement by the Lord High Chancellor that he would be surprised if the recent appointment of the hon. and learned Member for Upton (Sir E. Wild) had not been accompanied by a condition that he should resign his seat in this House either immediately or in the near future; and whether such condition was in fact made when the appointment was sanctioned?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that the position is as follows:
  The Lord Chancellor makes appointments where vacancies occur in the minor
  2172
  judicial offices in the City of London. The appointment of Recorder is in the hands of the Court of Aldermen, subject to the assent of His Majesty. It has been the practice for successive Lord Chancellors to impose upon those whom they appoint the condition that they should neither continue to be nor become Members of Parliament. The late Recorder never stood for or sat in Parliament after his appointment to that office 22 years ago.
  A Recorder appointed under the Municipal Corporations Acts has, ever since 1835, been precluded from serving in Parliament for the borough for which he is Recorder. The Recorder of the City of London holds by far the most important judicial office in the City. The Central Criminal Court is in almost continuous session, and the Recorder tries in any year more criminal cases than any one High Court Judge, while, when sitting in the Mayor's Court he exercises civil jurisdiction which is unlimited in amount. The constituency for which the present Recorder sits is within the area of the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court in which he sits.
  The Lord Chancellor would feel great surprise if the Corporation, in filling this high office, contemplated that the Judge so appointed would remain for any considerable length of time in the House of Commons.
  The Lord Chancellor thinks it right to add that the matter was not present to his mind when he advised His Majesty to approve the exercise by the present Recorder of judicial functions, or he would have thought it proper to raise the matter then. He is placing himself in communication with the Corporation and the Recorder, and does not anticipate that any serious disagreement upon the matter of policy involved is likely to arise.
  I do not see my hon. and learned Friend the Recorder at present in the House, and I regret that this material has come into my hands too late to advise him beforehand that I was going to give an answer of that character, so that he could be present.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in accordance with the usual custom, I communicated with my hon. and learned Friend before putting this question down?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to hear that. I thought it not unlikely that he would do so. I myself would have liked to have communicated with my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that on two occasions in the latter part of last century— one, I think, from 1880 to 1890—the Recorder for the City of London was, and continued to be for many years, a Member of this House; and is it not also the case that those in the City who recommended his appointment were pleased and glad that he should continue to be a Member of this House? Sir Charles Hall was one.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I believe I had the pleasure of sitting in this House with Sir Charles Hall. The usual practice and the propriety are better stated in the language of the Lord Chancellor than in my own. I think there has been a general tightening of the practice in this respect within my lifetime.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the reason why Recorders have not sat here in the past, that they were not very well qualified for it, and might not have been elected?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I think not.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
  Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Labour if he will instruct the Appointments Department to ask all Government Departments to furnish a list of the vacancies now existing, and likely to exist, in the next 12 months which could be filled by ex-service men of the Navy and British or Indian Armies after a short preliminary training without increase in establishment?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I have been asked to reply. Arrangements are already in operation whereby this information is furnished to the Joint Substitution Board established under the recommendations of Lord Lytton's Committee. In view of the numbers of ex-service men temporarily employed in Government Departments who are being discharged
  2174
  on reduction of staffs and to whom preference is given in allocating fresh vacancies, there is little scope at present for the appointment of ex-service men not so employed.
  Mr. HURD: Are there not competitive examinations now being held, or about to be held, to bring in fresh men, when there are ex-service men who, with a little training, could well qualify for these positions?
  Lieut.-Colonel ASTBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that disabled ex-service men are being dismissed from Government Departments and that young men who have seen no War service are being taken on?
  Mr. YOUNG: In reply to the, first question—I am answering on the spur of the moment and would like to have had notice—I am under a strong impression that no such examination is to be held in the immediate future. As to the second question, I am aware of no such case, and if the hon. and gallant Member will forward to me any such case of which he has information, it will be immediately inquired into.
  Lieut.-Colonel ASTBURY: I am much obliged.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INSURANCE (ADMINISTRATION).
    Mr. WALTER SMITHaskd the Minister of Labour if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of any regulations, instructions, or recommendations issued to local employment committees in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am arranging to place in the library copies of the memoranda issued to the local employment committees in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922, and of certain earlier memoranda to which reference is made therein.
    Mr. G. BARNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman done anything to embody in any of these regulations provisions for improving the status of the committees in accordance with the recommendations made by the Committee over which I had the honour of presiding?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: These are rules and regulations for the administration of the Insurance Acts. I do not think the status of the committees arises.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Minister of Labour the average sum per week which is being paid in unemployment benefit to women suitable for domestic service who do not accept situations when offered them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A woman who is suitable for and refuses domestic service would not be granted unemployment benefit. On a good many occasions claims to benefit have been rejected on this ground.

  INDUSTRIAL UNREST.
  Sir ROBERT CLOUGHasked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the national loss in time and wages, respectively, through industrial unrest in the last two months?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The aggregate time lost in March and April, in trade disputes involving stoppages of work, is estimated to have amounted to approximately nine million working days. This figure includes time lost by workpeople thrown out of work, owing to the disputes, at the establishments where the disputes occurred, as well as by those workpeople actually on strike or locked out; but it does not include time lost by workpeople rendered idle at other establishments, as to which figures are not available. The information in my possession is not sufficient to enable me to give a reliable estimate of the aggregate loss in wages resulting from the disputes.

  GERMAN REPARATION.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether this country is jointly responsible with its Allies for the decisions of the Reparation Commission as to the indemnity payments to be made by Germany; and, in view of the accumulation of evidence that Germany is able but unwilling to meet her financial obligations, what steps the Government proposes to take to enforce the treaty undertakings entered into by Germany?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The action to be taken in the event of default by Germany is a matter for the consideration of the Allied Powers.
  Sir F. HALL: Is the Government not of opinion that Germany, in many cases, is shamming her inability to meet her reparation, and is she to be allowed to be left in that position?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I can usefully answer a question of that kind. If Germany is declared in default by the Reparation Commission, the action to be taken is a matter for consideration by the Allied Governments. I regret they have not already met, or agreed to meet, to consider what should be done, but that is not our fault.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Under the Treaty, is it competent for any one of the Allies to enforce sanctions alone, without the concurrence of the other Allies?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will not expect me to answer a question of that kind without notice.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nearly a quarter of the whole German Empire is under timber, and during the last three years we have imported £180,000,000 of timber into this country?
  Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) aware that, in the first part of my question, I have referred to the fact that this country is jointly responsible with its Allies?

  TURKEY (BRITISH INTERESTS).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the text of the recent pact or agreement between the Italian Government and the Sublime Porte has been received by His Majesty's Government; whether, in view of the economic agreements made between the French and Italian Governments, respectively, on the one hand, and the Angora and Constantinople Governments, respectively, on the other hand, His Majesty's Government are taking steps to safeguard the commercial interests of British subjects in Turkey in Asia, and

  2177
  to secure for them favourable treatment as regards concessions and trading rights in those regions; and, if so, what are they?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the remainder of the question, His Majesty's Government do not consider that British commercial interests are likely to be adversely affected by the French and Italian agreements to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. Such interests will be protected in the final settlement, pending which concessions and trading rights are of uncertain value.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If these concessions are going to be granted under a preference to French or Italian subjects, is that no bound to act against the interests of British people, who also want to obtain trading and other concessions?

  OIL CONCESSIONS, RUSSIA.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the Royal Dutch and Shell groups of oil interests, or other oil companies, have approached His Majesty's Government for diplomatic support in obtaining concessions for oil exploitation in Russia; if so, how has His Majesty's Government received such approaches; whether His Majesty's Government have any knowledge of negotiations proceeding, or which have proceeded, at Genoa between British or Dutch oil companies and the Soviet Government of Russia; and whether His Majesty's Government can state their policy with regard to attempts by British subjects to obtain oil exploitation rights in Russia?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Foreign Office was approached in September last, and naturally promised to give the support always properly given to legitimate British enterprise. His Majesty's Government have no information as to the position reached in the negotiations. I am not clear as to the intention of the last part of the question, but His Majesty's Government are prepared to support British subjects in legitimate efforts to secure commercial concessions in foreign countries.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latter part of the question was intended, I hoped, to draw just such a reply as he gave?

  CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.
  Mr. W. SHAWasked the Lord Privy Seal (1) if he can now fix the date for the promised discussion of the Canadian cattle embargo question;
  (2) if, in view of the promises made to Canada and the keen interest taken in this matter throughout the Dominion, he will, in arranging for the discussion, so fix the date as to make it possible for the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) to be present?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I cannot yet name a day for this discussion, but I shall certainly hope to fix a date at which it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to be present.
  Mr. STURROCK: May I ask whether we shall have a discussion on this important matter before the House rises for Whitsuntide, in view of the very great interest manifested?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot undertake at the present time to give any pledge as to when the discussion can take place. We must make progress with Government business before I am asked to find a date for non-Government business.
  Mr. THOMAS: If a date is fixed, will the right hon. Gentleman leave the judgment of the House free, and not put on Whips?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said that long ago.
  Mr. STURROCK: Is it not the case that the Government gave a very definite pledge with regard to the question of Canadian cattle, so that it is really a, matter of Government business?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government announced that they were not prepared to introduce legislation this Session, in the present state of agricultural opinion in this country and of the agricultural industry. Under those circumstances, it is not Government business. I did undertake that I would find an opportunity, not necessarily a whole

  2179
  day, for the discussion of the subject, but that must be when we have made real progress with Government business.
  Captain W. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say, that whatever Resolution this House passes, the Government does not propose to pass legislation?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will you take action?"]
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to see the Resolution, and to know what is the action of the House. The decision of the Government was that they would not be responsible for introducing legislation this Session in the present state of the great mass of agricultural opinion, and the present difficulties of the agricultural community, but that if the question came before the House they would not put on the Government Whips, or make the decision one on which the fate of Governments depends.

  SIBERIA (JAPANESE TROOPS).
  Mr. G. BARNESasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that an understanding was given by the Japanese that, under certain circumstances, they would withdraw their forces from Siberia; and if he can make any statement as to whether or not such undertaking has been carried out, and, if not, as to the reasons?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that it is owing to the breakdown of the Dairen Conference that the Japanese Government have been unable so far to give effect to their declared intention to withdraw their troops from Siberia.
  Mr. BARNES: Is there any prospect of this Conference being reopened?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I do not know.

  GENOA CONFERENCE.

    GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY:
    53. To ask the Lord Privy Seal whether the notes of the conversations at Genoa between the Prime Minister and Monsieur
    2180
    Barthou on Saturday last on the return of the latter from Paris have yet reached him; and whether, in view of the various accounts of these conversations which have appeared in the Press, these notes can be laid upon the Table?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before asking this question, may I say that it was put on the Paper before the recent publication of M. Barthou's letter and M. Barthou's reply? In any case, I do not think it affects the question.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I do not think that I can usefully add to the answers which I gave yesterday, when I dealt with this subject fully.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have we not so far had statements of what did not occur at the Conference, and is it not very desirable that we should have an agreed statement of what did occur?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  EDUCATION.

    OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITIES (GRANTS).
    Major HILLSasked the Lord Privy Seal when the Treasury Estimate will be taken authorising the grants to Oxford and Cambridge?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on 1st May to a question by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh.

    TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the dissatisfaction widely expressed by school teachers with the proposal that they should be required to make a, contribution in respect of their pension, and particularly as regards other matters affecting teachers serving in independent schools, arising out of the distinction between qualified and recognised service under the School Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1918, he will arrange that the reference to the Committee, which he has promised to appoint, shall be sufficiently wide to

    2181
    enable the Committee, after hearing evidence, to report as to Amendments to the Act that might be recommended for adoption by the Government; and whether he can now state when the proposed Committee will be appointed?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Government propose to set up a Committee with the following Terms of Reference:
    "To inquire what modifications are desirable in the system of superannuation established by the School Teachers (Super-animation) Act, 1918, regard being had both to the economy of public funds and to the provision of adequate and suitable benefits for members of the teaching profession, as well as to the effect which such modifications are calculated to have on the scheme framed in terms of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1919."
    I hope to be able to announce the composition of the Committee shortly.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the evidence of other people who are interested in education be taken?
    Mr. FISHER: I assume that would be so, but that is a matter for the Chairman of the Committee to determine.
    Mr. RENDALL: Why was this answer not given some weeks ago, when I and many other hon. Members put the same question?
    Mr. FISHER: I did indicate that the Government were determined to have an inquiry, but the terms of reference had not then been settled. My right hon. Friend was at Genoa and I thought it better to defer the answer.
    Mr. A. SHAW: Is it proposed to go on with the Bill as circulated to-day?

    TEACHERS (WAR SERVICE).
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the number of women teachers whose War service was formerly recognised by the Board as teaching service; at what date the Board ceased to recognise such service as teaching service; the number of men teachers whose War service still counts as teaching service for the purpose of calculating salaries; and why, in the case of women only, this recognition is now withdrawn?
    Mr. FISHER: There is no question of the withdrawal by the Board of a recognition previously granted. The Board have not until recently had occasion to consider whether they could recognise for the calculation of grant additional expenditure of local education authorities involved in treating service with the forces of the Crown during the War as teaching service for purposes of increments on the Burnham Scales. The Board's decision was explained in Circulars 1227 and 1244, and became operative from the date of the introduction of the standard scales. I am unable to give the number of men teachers whose War service has been treated as teaching service under those Circulars.

  ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  Mr. G. BARNESasked the Lord Privy Seal if he can yet name a day for the introduction of the Allotments Bill; and if the Scotch Bill will be introduced simultaneously with the English?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Allotments Bill has already been introduced in another place, and has received its Second Beading. It is hoped that the Scottish Bill will be introduced very shortly.

  NEAR EAST (CHRISTIAN MINORITIES).
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the Report of Major Yowell, the American relief worker in the Near East and the director of the Kharput unit, in which he describes the treatment of the Christians by the Turks in the Kharput district; whether he has any official information showing that out of 30,000 Greek deportees 5,000 died before reaching Kharput, and another 5,000 died at Kharput or to the west thereof, the children of the dying deportees being left without assistance, and the women and girl refugees being taken by the Turks to use for their own purposes; and whether effective means will at once be taken by the Allies to protect the Christian minorities in Turkey?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the account referred to, and His Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople has

  2183
  been instructed to furnish a Report on the subject. All the information in the possession of His Majesty's Government is, in general, corroborative of the truth of Major Yowell's statements. The Allies are, unfortunately, not at present in a position to take any effective measures to protect the minorities in territory under Kemalist control, but guarantees for the safety of all minorities form an integral part of the peace settlement which they have proposed.

  EMPIRE DAY.
  Colonel NEWMANasked the Minister of Health whether a general scheme for the observance of Empire Day has been arranged for by the various local authorities in England and Wales; and, if so, does the scheme include a general observance of Empire Day in the State-provided schools of the country and the hoisting of the Union Jack on every public building?
  Sir A. MOND: I have no doubt that the Various local authorities will take such steps as they consider appropriate for the observance of Empire Day, but I am not aware that any general scheme has been arranged by them.

  IRELAND.

    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE (S. WILLIAMS).
    Sir MAURICE DOCKRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that Samuel Williams obtained permission to retire on pension from the Dublin Metropolitan Police in April, 1917, for service in France, and served with the colours until May, 1920, and when he retired in 1917 had completed 32 years of police service, only requiring two years of further police service to qualify him for a pension of £3 4s. per week, instead of the pension of £l 2s. 8d. per week which is now being paid him; and is it possible to regard his military service as supplemental to his police service, and entitling him to the higher pension which is given for 34 years' police service?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): This ex-constable applied for and was
    2184
    granted permission in April, 1917, to retire on pension in order to go to France and take up certain Government labour employment. He had then 32 years' service and was discharged on the maximum pension payable in his case. In view of the fact that he ceased to be a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police before joining His Majesty's Forces, there would appear to be no legal power to regard his military service as supplemental to his police service for purposes of pension.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Was not this poor man encouraged to join the forces, and why is he then to be treated in this shabby way?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Members, both of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and of the Royal Irish Constabulary, were asked to join, and did join in large numbers. Their service was a continuing one. This man asked for retirement, not for continuing service.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Was it not for further service?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: That I do not know; but I know he asked for leave to retire.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: The right hon. Gentleman might kindly inquire and see what he can do for him?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that there is no legal power to grant him the pension he would have received had he had continuous service in cither the police or the military forces. I regret that I have no power.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: You have the power.

    MALICIOUS INJURIES (CLAIMS).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a British subject domiciled in the Irish Free State who desires the assistance of his Government where injured in person or property should make his application to the Colonial Office or to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, as the representative of the Crown in the Irish Free State?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: A British subject domiciled in the Free State, who desires the assistance of his Government, should make application to the appropriate Department of that Govern-

    2185
    ment as soon as it is established; meanwhile any such application should be addressed to the Provisional Government. Every British subject who fails to obtain redress from the Government, whether of the United Kingdom or of a Dominion, has a common law right of petition to the King. In the case under consideration, any such petition should be addressed to His Majesty, either direct or through the Colonial Office.
    Colonel NEWMAN: In the case of a British subject injured in Mexico, surely he can make an application to our Foreign Office to get redress? In this case it would not be the Foreign Office, and would it not be the Colonial Office?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not dealing with the Foreign Office or subjects of the Crown in foreign countries. Thi6 question refers to the Dominions presenting a petition of right from the Dominions to or through the Colonial Office.
    Sir W. DAVISON: When the Dominion Government or the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland informs the man who applies for protection that they are unable to afford it, what is the man to do?
    Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: When they make an application, are they getting any help or are they getting nothing?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Provisional Government—under the greatest difficulty, I agree—is doing everything it can to protect the citizens of Southern Ireland. Unfortunately, in many parts of Ireland they are not able to do so.
    Sir W. DAVISON: What is a man to do—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    POSTAL ORDERS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the instruction he has issued to the effect that postal orders overstamped with the Irish Free State stamp are not to be honoured anywhere outside Southern Ireland is causing hardship and inconvenience to traders and others in this country; and if he will state why this step has been taken in view of the fact that no altera-
    2186
    tion has yet been made in the constitutional status of Southern Ireland?
    Mr. PEASE: No such instruction has been issued. Overprinted postal orders issued by the Post Office of the Irish Free State are payable wherever ordinary British postal orders are payable.

  WAR GRATUITIES (AUSTRALIAN FORCES).
  Lieut.-Colonel NALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the War gratuities of men domiciled in Great Britain who served in the Australian Commonwealth forces are in part retained in the form of interest-bearing bonds; and whether the men concerned are entitled to claim encashment of the bonds?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): I am informed that this matter is governed by the War Gratuity Act, 1920, of the Commonwealth of Australia, to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend. It may be of convenience to him if I send him a copy with this answer of the pertinent Section of the Act referred to.
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Would my hon. Friend bring some pressure to bear on the Colonial Governments in this matter?
  Mr. WOOD: I think I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend would first consult the Act; after that, if he sees fit to make further representations, well and good.

  SIERRA LEONE.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to complaints that unprovoked assaults have recently been made upon citizens in Sierra Leone by British military officers; and, seeing that this has tended to create unrest and discontent among the native section of the community, will he make inquiry into the matter, with a view to appropriate action being taken if the complaints prove to be well founded?
  Mr. WOOD: My attention has not been called to any such incidents, but I will ask the Governor to furnish me with a report on the allegations.

  CATTLE (TREATMENT IN TRANSIT).
  Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the sufferings which cattle undergo in their transit from Canada and other countries for slaughter at British ports; whether, in view of these cruelties, he will direct his inspectors to investigate and report upon the present condition of the traffic; and, in the event of these reports confirming the allegations of cruelty, will he take measures, in cooperation with the Canadian Government and Governments of other countries concerned, to end these cruelties?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Every possible precaution is taken to safeguard cattle sent across the Atlantic to this country. Provisions are contained in the Foreign Animals Order of 1910 issued by the Ministry for the protection of animals on the voyage, and I understand that the vessels also have to pass Regulations laid down by the Governments of the exporting countries. Reports are made by the Ministry's inspectors as to the conditions of the animals on arrival in this country. There is no evidence of cruelty, but from the nature of the case a certain amount of suffering is unavoidable when prolonged heavy weather is experienced. The number of casualties since the resumption of the traffic early last year has been small, but there was one serious case in September last when 57 cattle out of 285 on board were lost in the North Atlantic in a very heavy and prolonged gale.
  Mr. STURROCK: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, before the Canadian cattle embargo was imposed shiploads of cattle used to be put ashore in Scotland without any evidence whatever of their having suffered any hardship; and is he further aware that in several cases not only did the number of cattle which left Montreal arrive at a port of destination in Scotland, but even more appeared on the voyage?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information.

  FOREIGN CONTRACTS.
  Sir ROBERT CLOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received any information tending to show
  2188
  the loss or threatened loss, owing to the persistence of industrial unrest, of foreign contracts placed in this country; and whether trade in other countries is subject to the same measure of embarrassment in this respect as our own?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend's attention has not recently been called to any particular orders which have been lost by British firms for the reason stated by my hon. Friend, but it is obvious that industrial unrest must have a prejudicial effect upon the placing of foreign contracts in this country. Trade in other countries suffers from the same embarrassment, sometimes in a greater and sometimes in a lesser degree, but it is impossible to institute any precise comparison.
  Mr. J. DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman state who is responsible for industrial unrest to-day?

  NEWSPAPER POSTAGE.
  Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Postmaster-General if he is making any concession to British monthly trade newspapers, seeing that their foreign competitors can still come into this country at a halfpenny, whilst the British trade paper has a minimum of one penny, and that the foreigner is allowed four ounces for one penny, but our own publishers are only allowed two ounces for one penny?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The newspaper rate of postage is confined by Statute to journals published at intervals of not more than seven days. My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to propose legislation extending it to monthly newspapers. Such an extension could not be restricted to trade journals, and would involve a considerable sacrifice of revenue on a post which is, and always has been, carried on at a loss.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICE.
  Major HILLSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why other work was found in the Public Trustee Office for the lower clerical men in that Department when their own work was redundant

  2189
  owing to re-organisation, whereas the lower clerical women, in similar circumstances, were turned out of the Department; and why, in view of the fact that the men and women were working side by side in the same sections, it was not decided to declare the clerks redundant according to the length of their service, and not according to their sex?
  Mr. YOUNG: As part of the reorganisation referred to in the question, a particular section was discontinued, and part of its work transferred to other sections. In determining which of the staff of the disbanded section should be retained, all relevant factors, including length of service, were taken into account, but the governing consideration was necessarily whether a suitable post was available for the individual in the remaining sections.
  Mr. RENDALL: Was the most important and relevant fact taken into consideration, namely, the fact that the Public Trustee preferred to have men on his staff rather than women, and that therefore women are treated unfairly?
  Mr. YOUNG: No, Sir; there is no foundation for that suggestion at all.

  UNITED SERVICES FUND.
  Sir C. YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the inquiries as to the funds available for the settlement of the balance due from the Expeditionary Force Canteens and Navy and Army Canteen Board to the United Services Fund are now concluded; and, if so, what is the amount available, and when will it be paid over to the United Services Fund?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.
  Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: What is the reason for this continued delay, which has been going on for a very long time, and the funds are Very badly wanted? Will the Report be expedited?
  Sir R. SANDERS: The reason for the delay is that it is an exceedingly complicated matter, and those concerned are making every effort to get out the Report as soon as possible.
  Sir C. YATE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us any date?
  Sir R. SANDERS: I am afraid that would be very rash.

  INDIA.

    RETAINED ARMY OFFICERS.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the views of the Government of India have now been received on the question of the adjustment of the pay and pensions of those officers of the Indian Army who were retained in the Army on account of the War beyond the date on which they became due to be placed on the retired list; and, if not, when he expects to be able to make a statement on the subject?
    Earl WINTERTON: A reminder was sent to the Government of India on this subject on 8th April, and on 20th April they replied that it was still under consideration, and that an answer would be sent as soon as possible.

  NATURALISATION (MR. B. SCHLEIFSTEIN).
  Mr. KILEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to give consideration to the application of Mr. Bernard Schleif-stein, who applied for naturalisation in the year 1914, seeing that he has resided in this country for over 20 years, is a married man with a family, and is desirous that he and his children shall become British subjects; and, if he is not prepared to give the matter consideration now, whether he can hold out any hope that the application will be considered during the next 12 months?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I regret that I cannot make any definite promise to the effect of either of the hon. Member's suggestions.
  Mr. KILEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the reason why it takes seven years to consider an application? Should it not be either dealt with or dismissed?
  Mr. SHORTT: Several of those years were years of War, when nothing was being done.

  DURHAM CATHEDRAL.
  Colonel NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on the 30th ultimo a large body of men sought entrance to Durham Cathedral during divine service, and that, owing to their large numbers, they were unable to gain admittance, but went to St. James's Church, where they sang the Red Flag in spite of the remonstrance of the vicar; and what steps does he intend to take to prevent a further occurrence of such scenes?
  Mr. SHORTT: Until I read the hon. and gallant Member's question, I had heard nothing of the incidents referred to. I am making inquiries.

  SURPLUS WAR STORES.
  Mr. FOOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum realised since the Armistice from the sale of War stores?
  Sir W. DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cash value of War assets, including wheat and other food supplies, which have been realised since the Armistice and carried to current account in relief of taxation; and what is the estimated total value of War assets still to be realised?
  Mr. YOUNG: I propose to issue a return giving, as far as possible, the information asked for in these questions.

  BUDGET.

    INDUSTRIAL TROUBLE.
    Sir ROBERT CLOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in compiling the Budget he took into special consideration any exceptional estimate of national unemployment; and whether it will be necessary to review the position of the nation's finance if the existing industrial unrest continues?
    Mr. YOUNG: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to frame his Budget Estimates on a sober survey of the existing trend of trade and employment. Any serious extension of industrial trouble would, naturally, have serious effects on the financial position of the country.

    AMENITY LANDS.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the approximate total acreage of what he calls amenity lands, which are to be subject to assessment under Schedule B at only one-third of their annual value; and what is the approximate average annual value per acre as assessed under Schedule A of those lands?
    Mr. YOUNG: The approximate annual value, as assessed under Schedule A, of lands in Great Britain and Northern Ireland not occupied solely or mainly for purposes of husbandry, which it is now proposed to charge under Schedule B at one-third of their annual value, is £1,750,000. I regret I have no particulars of the acreage of these lands.

    MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL RECEIPTS.
    Mr. BANTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the details of the miscellaneous special receipts, amounting to £90,000,000, estimated to be received in the year to 31st March, 1923; and what are the actual comparative figures for the year to 31st March, 1922?
    Mr. YOUNG: For the details in 1921–22 I would refer the hon. Member to the annual Finance Accounts, which will be issued in due course. Apart from £45,000,000 representing Disposals and Shipping Receipts, the remaining total is spread over a large number of small items similar in character to those shown in the Finance Accounts of previous years.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Mr. BANTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the full details composing the amount of the National Debt at 31st March, 1922, specifying separately each class of Exchequer Bonds, National War Bonds, War Loan, Consols, and other loans, annuities, etc., and giving details of all the other liabilities in respect of the national indebtedness, together with the comparative figures as at 31st March, 1921, and full details as to money raised and debt repaid, including issues of stock by way of conversion during the year to 31st March, 1922?
    Mr. YOUNG: These details will be found in the Finance Accounts for the year 1920–21 and the year 1921–22, which will be published in due course.

    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
    Captain BOWYERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the co-operative movement in the country is paying an unequal share towards taxation, he will, to the extent of such inequality, secure by fresh taxation on co-operative societies, but without re-imposing Income Tax or Corporation Tax, that these societies do not get any preferential treatment over other companies in the task of contributing to the taxation of the country?
    Mr. YOUNG: I cannot, within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, deal with the implications contained in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. In view of the discussions and decisions in this House last year, I do not think anything would be gained by reopening the matter at the present time.
    Captain BOWYER: Is it not the case that private enterprise and private traders are working at a disadvantage when compared with the co-operative movement?
    Mr. YOUNG: I think that is a matter of opinion and argument.
    Captain BOWYER: Is it not a matter which can be tested by the figures of the annual trading done?
    Mr. YOUNG: The consideration of such figures would no doubt be relevant to the formation of an opinion.

    TEA DUTY.
    Captain BOWYERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the false position in which all sellers of tea are placed in view of their only having 3⅓d. allowed them with which to carry out a reduction of 4d. to the consumer; and will he reduce the Tea Tax by 4d. on all teas, wherever grown or, alternatively, if he cannot manage this, will he cause it to be publicly announced that the reduction to be expected by the consumer is 3⅓d. only?
    Mr. YOUNG: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. G. Murray) on the 8th May.

  STOCK EXCHANGE (INTEREST CHARGES).
  Mr. KILEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Stock Exchange Committee are allowing their members to charge the public on pre-War carry-over 9 per cent, interest, notwithstanding the reduction of the deposit rate to 2½ per cent.; and that the committee promised the Government in 1914 that members of the Stock Exchange would hand on to their clients any advantage that a reduced rate of interest by the joint stock banks might give them, and whether the Government intend to take any action in this matter?
  Mr. YOUNG: This is a matter for the Committee of the Stock Exchange, in which I do not propose to intervene.

  LOANS, ALLIES AND DOMINIONS.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the loans to Allies and Dominions, amounting as at 31st March, 1922, to £2,017,461, are all repayable in the United Kingdom sterling or whether any are repayable in the currency of the nations to whom the loans were lent; and, if so, in what currencies?
  Mr. YOUNG: The loans to Allies and Dominions are all repayable in sterling, with the exception of an amount of $16,974,000 due from Austria in respect of relief supplies and an amount of $37,227,602.36 due from France, which are repayable in United States dollars. In the Financial Statement these sums are converted into sterling at par.

  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the collection of Entertainments Duty at two theatres within the London area, within the last 12 months, at the King's, Hammersmith and the Wimbledon Theatres, has involved the presentation by, and at the expense of, the management of these two places of entertainment of 1,500 separate documents to the collectors of taxes, and that these documents have involved no less I than 4,600 signatures and 125,000 separate

  2195
  clerical entries; and whether he is able to give the numbers and emoluments of the Government staffs employed in collecting and checking the data provided by these two theatres alone?
  Mr. YOUNG: Entertainments Duty at the two theatres in question is collected on the basis of a return of payments for admission to each performance, a method of payment adopted at the proprietor's request as an alternative to the use of Government stamps and tickets, to which it is open to him to revert. I may add that this system of payment on returns was instituted as the result of strong pressure by the trade when the duty was introduced. I am unable to check the accuracy of the figures mentioned, but I am informed that the average cost of examining returns furnished in respect of London houses is well under £10 a year per house.

IRELAND.

  KIDNAPPED BRITISH OFFICERS.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now inform the House whether the three British officers who were kidnapped in Southern Ireland about a fortnight ago are still in captivity; and what action the British Government intend to take if the Provisional Government are unable to secure their immediate release?
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the names and regiments of the three officers who were recently kidnapped near Macroom; and if he has yet any information concerning them?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I have as yet received no further information regarding this matter. The military authorities are of opinion that in the interests of the officers concerned it would be undesirable at the present moment to publish their names.
  Mr. GWYNNE: What step is the right hon. Gentleman taking to get their release?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I answered that question a few moments ago. Every possible step has been taken, both here
  2196
  and by military authorities in Ireland to find out where these officers are.
  Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously inform the House of Commons that the Government are sitting down and allowing British officers to be kidnapped without anything tangible being done to secure their release?
  Rear-Admiral ADAIR: What sources of information have the Government as to what is going on in Southern Ireland—
  Viscount CURZON: None.
  Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Have they any source of information other than the Provisional Government; if so, is it not time they turned to some other source?
  Viscount CURZON: They do not care!
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not now nearly a fortnight since these officers were kidnapped—[An HON. MEMBER: "Three weeks!"]—yes, nearly three weeks, and is the British Government not going to take some steps to inform the House of Commons of the steps they are taking?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: They are taking exactly the steps in regard to the kidnapped officers that I have given in my main answer. General Sir Nevil Macready, the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, is, I know, taking every possible step to find out where these kidnapped officers now are. It would be impossible for me to give details; but I shall put the questions of hon. Members before the Commander-in-Chief. So far as the British Government is concerned, we are pressing upon the Provisional Government that the matter is one of anxiety in the House.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is there any Intelligence Department in Southern Ireland that would enable the criminals to be tracked and apprehended?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is no Intelligence Department in Southern Ireland nor in any of the Dominions.
  Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Do British officers now go about armed when they are outside barracks; if not, how can they be expected to protect themselves if the Government cannot protect them?

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  At the end of Questions—
  Mr. GWYNNE: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the failure of the Government to take adequate steps to secure the release of three British officers who have been kidnapped in Ireland, and who are in imminent danger of losing their lives."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The trouble that I find with this Motion is that the hon. Member does not indicate what steps he thinks the Government ought to take, and, therefore, it is impossible for me to judge whether those steps are within the present powers of the Government. I think the Motion fails on that ground of indefiniteness. If the hon. Member can show me that there has been some lapse on the part of the Government within their powers, without repealing the Statute passed last March, I will consider a Motion of this kind.
  Mr. GWYNNE: We have been told this afternoon by the Chief Secretary that we have still the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland, and I suggest that it would be out of place for me to suggest what steps he should take until the Government tell us what steps they are taking. I put it, further, to you, Sir, that a great responsibility rests on this House if it rejects this Motion. We have had examples already of men who have been kidnapped and whose lives have been taken in consequence. This has been going on from day to day, and I think the House has given the Government full time to give some explanation or proof that they are taking some definite steps. So far we have had no information that any steps have been taken beyond bringing the matter to the notice of the Provisional Government. It is to emphasise the protest that I wish to move the Adjournment of the House.
  Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: On that point of Order. May I submit for your consideration that if the Government, for their own purposes or for the purposes of the nation, have troops stationed anywhere, it is the duty of the Government to protect those officers and men, and that it is not the duty of a private Member to tell the Government how they
  2198
  should protect those officers and men whom the Government have stationed there?
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: On that point of Order. Are there not numerous precedents for the moving of the Adjournment of the House being allowed for the purpose of calling attention to the neglect of the Government in some particular, without specifying what the duty of the Government is? Is it not the whole purpose of the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment to explain what the neglect complained of may be I Surely it would be contrary to all precedent to set out, in the notice asking for leave, the exact policy which the House may call upon the Government to pursue?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I respectfully submit to you that if this incident— I know nothing about it except what has passed in this House—had taken place in a foreign country, it would have been clearly in order to have called the attention of the House to it, and, if necessary, for the House to have availed itself of its power under Standing Order Mo. 10, which, after all, does not indicate in any part of it that it is necessary to tell the Government exactly what they ought to do, but merely gives the House the right to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the point of a foreign country is necessarily parallel with this case, but the fact that these are British officers in the pay of this House entitles the House to inquire into the matter. I therefore put the Motion to the House.
  The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past Eight this evening.

VIVISECTION EXPERIMENTS.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to introduce a Bill to prevent the application of public money to vivisection experiments."
This is a Bill which I claim is a practical attempt at economy, and its object is to prevent the spending of public

2199
money on vivisection experiments. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent vivisection experiments being continued at the hands of any learned societies or others who provide the money, but in these times I do not think it is right that public money should be granted for this purpose, especially as it must come in part from persons who have scruples against vivisection. The sum of money, I believe, is substantial, though I have not been been able to get the actual figures. Before the War the amount of money spent on medical research was round about £60,000 a year. It is now over £120,000, of which a considerable sum, I understand, is spent on these experiments. I believe the figures are round about £30,000 or £40,000. I think that is money which could well be saved at the present time, and I hope I shall have the support of the House in introducing this very simple and very short Bill. There is talk of more money being demanded for these experiments, and the salaries which are being paid to the researchers, all of whom, of course, are not employed in vivisection, though a good many are, come alone to £38,000 a year. That is a very substantial amount, and I believe it could be saved without any harm to the body politic. It will not prevent a single vivisection experiment which is necessary because the learned societies who think it is necessary will undoubtedly be able to supply the funds to enable the experiments to be carried on.
Dr. MURRAY: I do not know whether it is a breach of the traditions of the House, but I do not know that there is much harm in mentioning the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend told me before I came into the House that he would not like me to be here at a quarter to four o'clock. He usually likes a large audience when he is speaking and I thought there was something suspicious in the suggestion so I inquired and discovered that he was going to attempt to introduce this Bill. In a sense I am very glad that he has introduced it. I am always so impressed with his almost unchallengeable wisdom upon every other subject that I am glad to discover that he is human after all and sometimes he is wrong upon public questions of this sort. It is comforting for the ordinary Member who
2200
sometimes makes mistakes in public policy to know that my hon. and gallant Friend, like Homer, occasionally nods too. This is a really flank attack upon experimental research. I should have expected a frontal attack judging from my hon. and gallant Friend's usual methods. It would have been more frank and candid if he had introduced a Bill abolishing all experimental research of this kind. I dislike the word vivisection and prefer experimental research. My hon. and gallant Friend gave as his principal reason that there conscientious objectors to experimental research and therefore they should not be taxed for experimental research of that sort. I did not discover that he brought in a Bill to prevent any public money being wasted upon the Navy or the Army because there are conscientious objectors who will be taxed for, as they say, killing other people. The position is quite the same. If he would like to be consistent he ought also to have included in his Bill that no public money should be spent upon the Army or upon the Navy. He did not discuss the merits of experimental research. There are two or three reasons which I should like to give why public money of all monies should be spent upon experimental research. Vivisection, as it is called, has been the means of advancing medical research within the last 30 or 40 years to an extraordinary degree. There is, for instance, the surgery of the brain. You cannot experiment upon the human brain. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I did hear of an Englishman who suggested that a surgical operation should be made upon a Scotsman's head under certain conditions, but although the suggestion has been made the experiment has never been carried out and therefore no Scotsman has ever got a glimmer of a sense of humour. But since research experiments have been made in the matter of the brain, some people suggest that Scotsmen have acquired a sense of humour. I do not know whether it is due to those experiments or not. Experiments upon animals have been the cause of a big progress in research of the brain, and that was of great use in the late War and saved thousands of lives. It is therefore a cause for which public money should be spent and spent much more liberally than it is at the present time. Take the case of diphtheria. How many lives have been saved by the

2201
knowledge gained by experiments in connection with anti-toxin? Surely that is an object for the spending of public money. One of the most recent advances in medical science has been due to experimental research in connection with the pituitary gland at the base of the brain. Without these experiments progress could not have been made, and in cases of shock after wounds in the War thousands of lives were saved. In another department, with which this House always shows sympathy, namely, obstetrics and women in labour, a series of experiments has saved more lives of women and children in one of the biggest crises of their lives than any other thing I know.
Mr. STANTON: Give us proof.
Dr. MURRAY: I am just giving these three examples as having been of great benefit to this country, to the world, and to humanity.
Mr. STANTON: Question.
Dr. MURRAY: I cannot conceive any object on which public money could be better spent than in the promotion of experimental research. Therefore, I object to this Bill being introduced.
Question put, "That leave be given to bring in the Bill to prevent the application of public money to vivisection experiments."
The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 170.

Division No. 101.]

AYES.

[4.5 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Halls, Walter

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Hancock, John George

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

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Hartshorn, Vernon

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Banton, George

Hayday, Arthur

Rose, Frank H.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

Sitch, Charles H.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hirst, G. H.

Spencer, George A.

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Stanton, Charles Butt

Betterton, Henry B.

Holmes, J. Stanley

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

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

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Breese, Major Charles E.

Howard, Major S. G.

Sutton, John Edward

Briggs, Harold

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Bromfield, William

Johnstone, Joseph

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

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

Kenyon, Barnet

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

Cape, Thomas

Kiley, James Daniel

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Carr, W. Theodore

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lawson, John James

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Lindsay, William Arthur

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

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughtan)

Lunn, William

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.

Dockrell, Sir Maurice

Macquisten, F. A.

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wignall, James

Finney, Samuel

Mills, John Edmund

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

Foot, Isaac

Morris, Richard

Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

Frece, Sir Walter de

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Gilbert, James Daniel

Myers, Thomas

Windsor, Viscount

Glyn, Major Ralph

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

Wintringham, Margaret

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

Wise, Frederick

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

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

Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Major C. Lowther.

Hallas, Eldred

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

NOES.

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Brassey, H. L. C.

Cope. Major William

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Brown, Major D. C.

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

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

Bruton, Sir James

Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

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

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Cairns, John

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

Barnston, Major Harry

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

Dean, Commander P. T.

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Casey, T. W.

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Cautley, Henry Strother

Doyle, N. Grattan

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

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchlnl

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

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

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Lady wood)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Bigland, Alfred

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

Clough, Sir Robert

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Blair, Sir Reginald

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Remer, J. R.

Fell, Sir Arthur

Kennedy, Thomas

Remnant, Sir James

Flannery. Sir James Fortescue

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

Rodger, A. K.

Forrest, Walter

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Lloyd, George Butler

Royce, William Stapleton

Galbraith, Samuel

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Gange, E. Stanley

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Gardner, Ernest

M'Connell, Thomas Edward

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Gee, Captain Robert

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Gillis, William

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

Seager, Sir William

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

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

Smith, Sir Maicolm (Orkney)

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

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

Matthews, David

Steel, Major S. Strang

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Middlebrook, Sir William

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Hallwood, Augustine

Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

Stewart, Gershom

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

Moles, Thomas

Sturrock, J. Leng

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

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Taylor, J.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Tickler, Thomas George

Haslam, Lewis

Mosley, Oswald

Townley, Maximilian G.

Hills. Major John Waller

Murchison, C. K.

Tryon, Major George Clement

Hinds, John

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Turton, Edmund Russborough

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

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

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

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Nail, Major Joseph

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Hopkins, John W. W.

Neal, Arthur

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Nield, Sir Herbert

Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.

Hudson, R. M.

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

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

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

O'Connor, Thomas P.

Wilson. Field-Marshal Sir Henry

Hurd, Percy A.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Winterton, Earl

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

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

Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Jephcott, A. R.

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Jesson, C.

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Dr. Murray and Sir P. Magnus.

Question put, and agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.
Stoke-on-Trent Corporation (Gas Consolidation Bill) [Lords],
Trafford Park Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
London County Council (Tramways, Trolley Vehicles, and Improvements) Bill (changed to "London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill"),
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NEW MEMBER SWORN,
Sir JOHN LEIGH, Baronet, for Borough of Wandsworth (Clapham Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I must say that I move the Second Reading of this Bill, which makes provision for the disbandment of the historic force of the Royal Irish Constabulary, one of the oldest and certainly one of the finest police forces in the world, with profound regret. Its disbandment will be a great loss to Ireland, but it is inevitable. It is consequential upon the Treaty with the representatives of Southern Ireland, and, in addition, its disbandment is urged unanimously by the police force itself. It was the unanimous view of these gallant Irishmen, expressed in a single sentence, namely, that as an Imperial force they were born, and as an Imperial force they wished to die. I am informed that a considerable number of the force will re-enlist in the new Royal Ulster Constabulary. In that new force they will maintain and continue the traditions of the old force. The House will remember that the Royal Irish Constabulary was established by Lord Melbourne's Government in 1836, and it is interesting to note that it was supported in its establishment by Daniel 0'Con.nell. The force originally consisted of approximately 7,000 men of all ranks. By 1848 it had increased to 10,000, and afterwards it averaged just over 11,000 for more than 60 years. In the troublous times of 1887 its strength increased to over 12,000. The highest total in its history was in 1921, when the regular force numbered 12,902. I would also remind the House that in 1920 the Auxiliary Division of ex-officers was started, and subsequently two other temporary divisions, namely, the Veterans Division of ex-service men and a Transport Division to take charge of motor transport. These Divisions were tem-
2230
porary, but are included in the Bill now before the House. The maximum strength of the force, to which the Bill refers, at its highest moment on 11th July, 1921, was 12,902 Regulars and 3,052 temporary police. The House will remember that the Treaty was signed on 6th December last. Preparations for the disband ment of the force were at once made. The disbandment of the Auxiliaries, the Veterans and the Transport Division has already been completed with the exception of a few minor details. The disbandment of the regular Royal Irish Constabulary commenced at the end of March and the numbers of that force at present are as follows. In Northern Ireland, 2,130: in Southern Ireland, 1,982. There are no policemen under the control of this House doing duty in Southern Ireland at the present time. These 1,982 in Southern Ireland are concentrated in four camps, and are being disbanded from day to day.
I must now express my regret that it was not possible to ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading before disbandment commenced. The policy of disbandment was contemplated and provided for by Article 10 of the Treaty. The terms on which the Irish police are being disbanded have been before the House, for some time. I have myself many times met representatives of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who have always urged the disbandment of that force at the earliest possible date.
Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Will the right lion. Gentleman say how many have been disbanded up to the present?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot bind myself to the exact figures, but from memory I can say that 1,500 Auxiliaries have been disbanded, and approximately 4,000 recruits of the regular R.I.C. from Great Britain, 500 transport drivers and mechanics, and some 800 old soldiers, called veterans, who were engaged on fatigue, orderly, and barrack duties. That leaves a permanent force of about 8,000, and they have all been disbanded except 4,212, almost equally divided between the North and the South. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) knows, the Royal Irish Constabulary in Northern Ireland was placed under the control of the Northern Government on 22nd November last. It has been under the control of that Government ever since. The Bill introduces, so far as I

2231
know, a new term in the vocabulary of pensions, namely, the term "compensation allowance." That term is introduced in reference to all police who have been disbanded from the regular forces since 25th January of this year. The term "compensation allowance" has been brought into the Bill because all those police to which I referred are disbanded on the terms, as I shall explain later in greater detail, laid down by the Act of 1920. Those terms were that every policeman would have added to his term of service 12 years in the event of his services being dispensed with, and on that added term of service of 12 years, plus all the increments which would have accrued if he had served that extra 12 years, his pension would be struck. Therefore, when we speak of "pensions" of the Royal Irish Constabulary, we mean the pensions of the policemen who left before disbandment. When we speak of "compensation allowance"' we refer to the allowance granted to those policemen under the Act of 1920 on their disbandment, and which, to some extent, is compensation for their loss of office.
Under Article 10 of the Treaty it is contemplated that all the Irish Royal Irish Constabulary will have their pensions paid ultimately by the Free State Government. His Majesty's Government, however, has not only guaranteed the payment of all pensions and compensation allowances, but has actually taken over the administration and payment of all pensions and compensation allowances under this Bill or any preceding Act that applies. This is to guarantee these Irish policemen and all other policemen, whether recruited in Ireland or elsewhere, a strict and immediate payment of that which is due to them and to relieve many of them of certain anxieties. Under the Bill the Treasury will administer the pensions and compensation allowances hitherto administered by the Inspector-General or by the Lord Lieutenant acting under the advice of the Chief Secretary.
The Bill itself is divided into two main parts. The first is an important part dealing with the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary and those temporary forces attached to it. The second part deals with the transfer of
2232
resident magistrates to the Northern Irish Government. Let me just clear the latter point out of the way, because it is a minor though important point. Under Clause 2 of the Bill, the Resident Magistrates now functioning in Northern Ireland are transferred to the Northern Government. After the passing of this Bill, the Northern Government alone will be responsible for the appointment, the pensions and the salaries of Resident Magistrates in their area. This completes the final transfer to the Northern Government of all matters connected with the administration of law as contemplated by the Act of 1920. The Resident Magistrates in Southern Ireland were transferred by the Order in Council of 1st April last, which was laid on the Table of the House and which followed the passing of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act. They are now paid by the Provisional Government, and are responsible only to the Provisional Government. Of course, if they are removed or in any way affected by the transfer, they come under Article 10 of the Treaty, which specifically provides for officers of the police, Resident Magistrates, and so on.
The Bill is, I regret, largely made up of reference. These Bills, however, are drawn by the very skilled draftsmen connected with each Government Department. With the permission of the House I will go in detail through the different portions of the Bill. Clause 1 refers to the last day on which disbandment may take place. On that point I am bound to say that disbandment is proceeding slowly, for the very obvious reason that we do not wish to disband men in Southern Ireland unless we have an assurance that their lives will be safe, or unless, in places where their lives are threatened, we have accommodation in Ireland or Great Britain to which they can immediately go.
Sir JAMES REMNANT: It is rather late in the day to find that out.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: It has always been the policy of the Government.
Sir J. REMNANT: You have not carried it out.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: There has been and there is to-day a great deal of criticism about the treatment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but I hope I can

2233
show that the Government has done everything humanly possible to look after the well being of these Irish policemen. The second part of Clause 1 sets out the governing principle of the Bill, namely, the terms of the Act of 1920 on which these compensation allowances are based. In the third and last part, the Treasury takes power to grant pensions and gratuities to widows and children of the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 applies in part the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions Order of 1922, which was laid on the Table of the House. This Pensions Order is a very lengthy document, and we had a Debate upon it some time ago, in which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) pointed out some defects, which I am glad to say that I told him I would not delay in remedying, and I hope he will be satisfied with the amended Order soon to be laid on the Table of the House. These Orders can always be amended, and I hope that hon. Members will diligently study them to see that the wishes of everyone, including the Government, are met in dealing with this force.
The provisions of the Pensions Order, under Articles 15 and 16, are helpful to the police. I would, however, point out frankly that in Article 17 there is some restriction put upon the enjoyment of compensation allowances and pensions if the police enter certain Government employ. That is a debatable point, but it is a long established principle acted on by this House for many years, that if a man receives a pension from public funds and is again employed in a public office as defined by certain Acts or in a police force in the case of a policeman, he should not receive the pay of his rank and also in full the pension he has already obtained.
Mr. MOLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if he knows of any police force in the whole world in which that condition is applicable, and whether it was applicable to the conditions of the old Royal Irish Constabulary?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I think it refers to police forces in this country if on retiring on pension they are re-engaged in a police force.
Mr. MOLES: I am discussing now what the right hon. Gentleman described as the
2234
Imperial force. It certainly did not apply to the old Royal Irish Constabulary. It is quite a new proposal.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I pointed out quite frankly that the point was a debatable one. I hope the point will be raised in the discussion how far a pension granted to a policeman should be taken into consideration if that same policeman is re-employed either in a police force or in some public office. Subsection (4) applies the Pensions Commutation Acts, 1871 to 1882, to the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary, that is, commutation granted at the discretion of the Treasury. Up to the present those grants of commutation have been made to the ex-members of the force for the purpose of emigration only, and a considerable number, several hundreds, have made application for the commutation of a portion of their pension for the purpose of going abroad, generally to one of our Dominions. On page 3 of the Bill there is introduced, so far as I know, quite a new scheme in the interests of pensioners, ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It is quite obvious to anyone who knows Irish conditions, and especially the state of employment in Ireland and in Great Britain, that for the next year or two the pensioner will be in greater difficulty, especially the pensioner with a small pension, than he will be, I hope, in the future. Under this new provision, any pensioner having less than 15 years service may augment his pension, under certain conditions, by receiving a larger amount of pension for two years from the date of his disbandment, and afterwards receiving a less pension in order to recoup the Treasury for the increased amount of pension granted during the two years. I am now referring to Sub-section (4) and the whole of page 3, except Sub-section (5). This is granted as an annuity for two years. I will give an example to show the House how it will work. The minimum pension granted to an ex-member of the Royal Irish Constabulary is £46 16s. a year. That is for a man who served less than six months in the Force. It is the largest pension for that length of service ever granted. That man's weekly pension is less than £l a week, but by augmenting his pension he can get not £46 16s. a year, but £106 12s. a year for two years, if 21 years of age, and for the succeeding

2235
years his pension is abated until the repayment is made on the technical scheme set out on page 3. He will thereafter receive a reduced pension of £37 16s., instead of £46 16s.
Mr. MARRIOTT: I presume there is no power of recovery if the man dies. The Treasury must take its chance.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the man dies the pension ceases, although provision can be made for the widow and children at the discretion of the Treasury.
Sir J. REMNANT: Is there any compulsion about it? Otherwise, we know how the Treasury and the Government have treated the widows and children over here. They have always let them down.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am speaking of the widows and children of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and I do not think it is fair to suggest that this is ungenerous treatment. The last joined recruit gets a pension nearly equal to that given to the man who has won the Victoria Cross. None of these last joined recruits did any fighting of any kind, and I hope to convince the House that the terms are most generous. The plan of augmenting a small pension for two years and decreasing it in subsequent years is a very fair way to meet the pressure on those particular policemen who cannot live on their pension or secure employment during the present period of depression. Take a constable with ten years' service with a pension of 38s. a week, aged 30. He will be able to increase his pension from 38s. a week to £2 15s. 6d. a week for two years, and at the end of two years his pension will be reduced by 2s. 9d. a week to 35s. 3d. This applies to all members of the force who have less than 15 years' service, and who we think are in need of increased pensions or compensation allowance during the next two years.
Sub-section (5) is a precaution against fraud, and Sub-section (6) dates back the operation of this Bill to the 25th of January last. I have already expressed my regret that I could not get the Bill before the House at an earlier date. I think everybody is agreed that disbandment was the only possible course for the Government to take under the circumstances. Sub-section (8) deals with the
2236
transfer to the Treasury of the powers of the Lord Lieutenant or Inspector-General with respect to pensions allowances or gratuities. Sub-section (9) fixes as the date of transfer to the Northern Government of the responsibility for certain pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary the date of the passing of this Act. Clause 2 deals with the transfer of public services in -connection with Resident Magistrates, and I have already dealt with that. Clause 3 deals with the validation of things done or omitted in the execution of the Acts relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Royal Irish Constabulary is governed by a great number of Statutes, which applied very well in normal times. Each county had its local strength of constabulary, and if it was necessary to move, say, 100 men from the Reserve in the Depot in Dublin down to County Kerry, the cost of the extra force was chargeable in part to the local authority. During recent hostilities which have prevailed in a very large part of Ireland it was impossible to apply all these strict rules, especially having regard to the fact that the local government of Ireland entirely broke down.
Mr. R. McNEILL: What hostilities?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member will have to refresh his memory. I said in recent hostilities which occurred in Ireland. Clause 3 is put in to validate the movement of police, and all the matters that were done in consequence of the recent difficulties in Ireland, not in strict accordance with the Statutes governing the police, if they were authorised by the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary, or certified by a Secretary of State to have been necessary or expedient for the restoration or maintenance of order in Ireland.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman says that Clause 3 validates everything that has been done. I do not so read the Clause. I only read it as applying to the appointment or distribution of officers or constables. It is important that this point should be cleared up, because if it is intended to be a general validation, very large and contentious questions may arise.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Noble Lord is quite right. It does not apply to everything done. Those things which the Noble Lord probably has in his mind

2237
must be covered by a Bill of Indemnity, which will be brought before the House at the earliest possible moment. The Bill is in draft and only awaits the time of the House before it is presented and discussed. This is a severely technical matter, and does not raise the whole of the issues that must be raised and discussed when the Bill of Indemnity is submitted to the House.
Mr. R. McNEILL: Then the Clause merely covers the appointment or distribution of officers?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: It goes further than that. It deals with the question of expenses. The extra expense of taking a number of police to a disturbed county would be borne in part by the local ratepayers. We have spent the money.
Sir F. BANBURY: There is no doubt about that.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend is not responsible. This Clause is to validate those acts which had to be done by the Constabulary Authorities by reason of the very disturbed state of Ireland in recent years.
Mr. R. McNEILL: Does that mean the acts which were necessary to keep them on the run?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member can draw his own conclusion.
Sir J. BUTCHER: Supposing this money had been incurred in sending special police into a disturbed county, the cost of which is to be recovered out of the local rates. Do we preserve our right to get that money from the local rates?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: The only place where special police have been used in recent years is in the area of the Northern Parliament, and certain expenses—
Mr. MOLES: My right hon. Friend has missed the point of the question. The question was whether police had been sent specially, and not whether special police had been sent.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: Those are two entirely different matters. I think I have explained that. The Schedule omits certain portions of the Act of 1920 for the benefit of the police. I would like to give, very briefly, although it has been
2238
before the House for some weeks, the actual terms of disbandment, so that there can be no doubt as to how the Government is treating the ex-members of this gallant force. In the first place, every member of the Royal Irish Constabulary will receive a pension, and the minimum pension will be £46 16s. a year. That rises, according to rank and length of service, to £600 a year for a County Inspector. These pensions are based on the Act of 1920. When the Act of 1920 was passed I do not remember anyone criticising it on the ground that it was unfair or ungenerous to the police. I quite admit that in 1920–21 the conditions were worse, and that the conditions now are worse for the disbanded men in some parts of Ireland than would have been the case if they had been disbanded in 1914, 1917, or 1918, and it is because circumstances are different that these additional grants have been determined on by the Government.
Any Irish member of the Constabulary can receive Disturbance Allowance equal to one, two or three months pay according as he is a single man or a married man with two, three or more children to enable him to remove his family and furniture to this country. His family and himself receive a free warrant from any part of Ireland to any part of Great Britain or Ireland. It is a fact that the expenses o£ removal come under scrutiny in order to assure the representative of the Treasury on the Tribunal that the money has been fairly spent. In addition, every Irish policeman who leaves Ireland because he feels himself to be in danger is entitled to draw, from the date of disbandment, separation allowance as if he were still serving the Crown in a hostile Ireland. That means that every married constable or sergeant gets 14s. a week, every Head Constable 17s. 6d. a week, and every officer 28s. a week, in addition to his pension. It is limited to a period of three months because it is hoped—after all we must have some regard to the public purse in these matters— that within three months, or within three months of the final disbandment of the force, matters will have much improved in Ireland. If things do not improve, as it is hoped they will, I shall be prepared to urge the continuance of this separation allowance.
Special facilities are also given to alt ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabu-

2239
lary to emigrate. They can have a part of their pensions commuted and arrangements made for their passage to any part of the world. In addition—this I consider most important—we have set up a special Tribunal under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Troup, until recently permanent head of the Home Office, and therefore a man of considerable experience in police administration, assisted by Mr. Clayton, an Assistant Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Dublin, and Mr. Upcott, a well-known Treasury official. This tribunal sits from day to day to hear exceptionally hard cases from all ranks of the police. They have the power specifically to recommend an extension to a maximum of six month's pay of disturbance allowance for the purposes of removal, gratuities, in addition to disturbance allowances, up to a maximum of six month's pay, and such additional allowances in any individual case as it may appear to require. I submit that those cannot be described as ungenerous terms.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. ALLEN: Is the Tribunal sitting now?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: The tribunal sits from day to day. If any hon. Member wishes to bring cases before it all he has to do is to send the facts or come himself to the Irish Office. I say that because I know that many of these policemen are very timid about appearing before any tribunal. I can assure them that they need have no fear of appearing before this Tribunal because its meetings are held in a room allocated to it and the policeman is entitled to give evidence himself, and bring any witness he likes to support his own evidence.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Without his name being disclosed?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: His name must be disclosed to the Tribunal.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Disclosed outside?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, there is no publication at all. I have always supported any policeman who is in great personal danger. In addition, I would remind the House—and Ireland is the only country in the world to which this applies —that under the Criminal Injuries Acts all members of the Crown forces who have
2240
been killed or wounded during the recent critical times are entitled, through their dependants in the case of the killed, or through themselves when wounded, to receive awards from the County Courts. From the 1st January, 1919, to 11th July, 1921, the date of the truce, there were, in Ireland, policemen killed, 366; wounded, 572. Soldiers killed, 128; wounded, 297. The total casualties in killed and wounded were 1,363. That is a ghastly total. But it has to be said that every dependant of the killed, and the surviving wounded, get awards of money, which have been paid, or are in course of being paid now, and that the award of the County Court Judge is never questioned by the Government in relation to these persons. I shall ask the House shortly for money in order to complete the final payment in all these cases. I will give a case in point. A sergeant was wounded in the foot in a fight in the West of Ireland. He went to the County Court Judge and got an award of £2,000. He then comes to this country —this is a case which I know of my own personal knowledge, just as I know many others—and he gets several hundred pounds on account. The balance he certainly will get within the next few months I hope, and he gets a pension of £3 15s. a week for life in addition. My point here is that in addition to the pension and the extra grants which we have made under the Criminal Injuries Acts, grants have been made to dependants of killed and the surviving wounded on a scale never hitherto thought of in the history of war, or disturbances of any kind, in which casualties result.
Sir J. BUTCHER: That applies to cases before the truce, but does the compensation under the Criminal Injuries Act apply to cases since the truce?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend is an important one and—
Mr. MOLES: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are plenty of cases of policemen being murdered since the truce, and in many places it is not possible to bring the matter into Court, because the Courts are not able to sit. What is done in these cases?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is very important, and I will deal with it. The awards made for casualties up to the date of the truce, 11th July, 1921, will be

2241
paid by the Government. Since 11th July, 1921, the policeman has his remedy, under the Criminal Injuries Acts, which are still law in Ireland. I admit the point taken by the hon. Member, that in some parts of Ireland it is difficult to bring these cases before a County Court Judge who is interrupted, when he desires to hear the cases, by ruffians who come in arms and compel the Courts to break up. Those eases apparently are not numerous, so far as my information goes, and I think that they must be looked upon as a postponement of justice, and not as a negation of justice.
Mr. MOLES: The postponement of justice is, in effect, a negation of justice, as it is well known that these Courts will never sit again under British justice. These men are entitled to have their cases heard and determined. It is the business of the Government under which they serve, and in whose service they incurred injuries, to protect them, and this is the time to protect them.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I see the point raised by the hon. Member. This was an arrangement come to some months ago, when there were no murders, because between the truce and the treaty, though there were woundings of policemen and attempted murders of policemen, I do not think that there were any policemen murdered as a fact. Since the Treaty there have, I admit, been over 20 policemen murdered and over 40 wounded.
Mr. R. McNEILL: There were policemen killed within a week of the truce.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not my information. Whatever it may be, this agreement as to payment in full of the personal awards by the County Courts was arrived at in consultation with the Provisional Government of Ireland and it was decided at that time that the dividing date should be the date of the Truce, namely, 11th July, 1921, and that after that the usual remedies under the Criminal Injuries Acts should be sought by those who are victims of violence in Ireland.
Mr. MOLES: That remedy is now denied them.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: In a certain district in Southern Ireland an unfortunate applicant for justice in one case was actually murdered. In other cases
2242
the applicant has not been able to have his cause heard in the County Court because the Court has been broken up by armed ruffians. My own view is that in those cases the Government have certainly a moral responsibility for these men, and I am prepared in Committee to consider some Amendment that might meet the very hard cases of these men, but I am explaining now that we arrived at this particular date, 11th July, 1921, not because we do not agree that the policemen and soldiers who have been subsequently murdered or wounded do not deserve the best sympathy, support and treatment which the House can give them, but because this was the date fixed by agreement with the Provisional Government and one cannot alter such dates without re-arrangement with the Provisional Government.
Mr. R. McNEILL: Why was this distinction made between the cases which occurred before and after the truce? Was not the responsibility of the Government for these men greater and not less than the responsibility before the truce, and why do they get worse treatment instead of better treatment?
Sir H. GREENWOODI do not agree. When the truce was arranged it was hoped that the Courts would function in the usual way, and that the normal remedy of the Courts under the Criminal Injuries Acts would continue. In some cases—a few cases—for we must not exaggerate in these matters—
Sir W. BARTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the percentage of the total number of the Courts which are not functioning?
5.0 P.M.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: According to my information, about six Courts have been disturbed, not in all cases, but in certain cases, where a policeman has asked that his case should be considered under the Criminal Injuries Acts, not the police man himself, but someone acting on his behalf—
Sir W. ALLEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman promise to bring in such Amendments as will deal with these particular cases, for, as he is well aware, private Members cannot do so?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: My personal view is that it must be done, and I am sure that my colleagues will agree with

2243
me that it ought to be done. But this is a matter that one must submit to one's colleagues to get final decision. When the Bill gets into Committee, I shall do my best.
Mr. MOLES: There are only a few of them.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I submit that the Bill and its terms show that the Government, supported by the whole House, have tried to deal fairly and sympathetically with the Constabulary. If you ask me whether the terms are adequate, I say that no terms are adequate for men who have gone through what these men have gone through. One must, however, have some regard to the claims upon the public purse at this time. One must have some regard to the disbandment of thousands of officers and men of the Army and Navy. In these cases the difficulty is not in the amount of money that I am asking the House to allocate to the Royal Irish Constabulary. The difficulty is to make certain that these men, their wives and families have the hope of a secure future and a decent chance to continue a peaceful life. The House will excuse me if I speak with great feeling in this matter, for the most honourable part of my somewhat chequered career has been the fact that I gladly associated myself with this force during its most difficult period. I have done my best, during the greatest pressure upon me, not only to defend them in this House, which was never difficult, because the House was always sympathetic, but also during difficulties and troubles in Ireland. I think they are the pick of the Irish race. Nearly all of them are the sons of farmers. Some of them are farmers themselves, and they looked forward to a return to their farming at the end of their careers in the police, force. For many that is now impossible. The men have never flinched in their devotion to duty, and I think that country is happy where these men and their families ultimately settle. They bring with them pensions, payable by this House, to the extent approximately of £2,000,000 sterling a year, although a very large portion of that will be recouped from the Irish Free State Government and a part of it from the Government of Northern Ireland. To any country where they go they bring with them perfect
2244
physique, the highest character, and thrifty habits as assets. I am sure this House will commend them as men and women worthy of the heartiest welcome and the closest fellowship to whatever country they may ultimately go.
Mr. ASQUITH: I need hardly say that I do not rise to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. After the long, and not too long, explanation of the Chief Secretary, I confess myself still in a state of great mental obscurity as to most of the Bill's provisions. I think the Bill is a monumental example of drafting ambiguity and chaos, and I cannot help thinking that when the Bill gets into Committee a number of points which the right hon. Gentleman has somewhat superficially touched will require much more careful scrutiny and explanation. I shall not go into what may be called Committee points. I will make only one general observation, and that is that, anxious as we all are that members of this great force, about to be disbanded, should receive not only just and equitable, but generous consideration from the House of Commons, there are difficulties in the present condition of Ireland which make the normal operation of the Courts, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, in. many parts of the country almost impossible, and even where the Courts do operate, and where decisions are given and judgment pronounced, I fear that in a very large number of cases it is impossible to obtain execution of them. I say that because it governs the whole situation when you are considering the practical operation of any terms which may be laid down in an Act of Parliament for the compensation of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
My sole purpose in rising was to say what I very strongly feel, that it is in some ways a melancholy though a necessary result of recent legislation that this great and historic force should at last be disbanded. I shall have the sympathy of the whole House when I say that. I have been concerned for many years, and responsibly concerned, in the administration of Irish government. I have never known a case, no matter who was in power or what the character of the legislation passed by this Parliament, in which the Constabulary did not loyally respond to the obligations put upon them. Recruited, as they are, from all the

2245
different sections of the Irish people, Roman Catholics, Protestants, North and South, East and West, they have never failed, in my experience, in carrying out the duties imposed upon them as executive officers of the Government and Parliament of the day. They have a glorious record. I do not believe that a finer force was ever got together in any part of the world, not only physically, not only in point of what you might call everyday efficiency, but in the magnificent spirit of discipline and loyalty they have always applied to the discharge of their duties.
When we are passing a Bill of this kind, which, after all, is the epitaph, the winding-up of a most distinguished force, I do not think this House ought to part from its long association with this devoted band of servants of the Crown without expressing what we must all feel and what history will record— the deep sense of obligation under which we stand for the services they have rendered to Great Britain, to Ireland, and to the Empire. As far as I am concerned, and as far as I am entitled to speak for anyone else, we would like to see that necessary process accompanied by every possible consideration for the well-being and the security of those who are passing out of the service of the Crown. While I do not profess to be able to understand, with my limited powers of comprehension, the explanations of the Chief Secretary, or to be able to ascertain with any precision what will be the actual result of the compensation provision in this Bill, I do venture to urge upon the House that the provisions of the Bill should be scrutinised in Committee with the utmost care, that all ambiguities and obscurities should be removed, and that the whole of our proceedings in the matter should be dictated by a spirit of gratitude and generosity to this great force, which now disappears from the scene in which it has played such a conspicuous and patriotic part.
Sir J. BUTCHER: The House will have heard with some emotion and with great satisfaction the distinguished tributes which have been paid to the Royal Irish Constabulary, not only by the Chief Secretary but also by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who by his long association with politics has had ample opportunity of judging of the
2246
value of this force. We have heard these tributes paid by the two right hon. Gentlemen with intense satisfaction, and I feel confident that everyone in the House will feel that the tributes were couched in by no means more generous terms than the force deserved. Those of us who have lived in Ireland and have known Ireland for forty or perhaps more years, and have witnessed from time to time the action of the Royal Irish Constabulary, look upon the disbandment of this splendid force as little short of a tragedy. As the Chief Secretary has said, it was formed shortly before the accession of the late Queen Victoria, and ever since that day its record, often in times of great stress and grave danger, has been an unbroken record of fidelity, of loyalty, of devotion, discipline, and conspicuous courage. I need not recall that record except to say this. We all remember the dark days in the Eighties. The right hon. Member for Paisley will remember them well. They were the days of the Land League, and the Plan of Campaign. We also remember that in 1906 peace had been absolutely restored, and prosperity and contentment to a degree "greater than had ever been attained," as Mr. Birrell said, "in the course of 700 years." I have no hesitation in saying that a large part of that great result was due to the devoted services of the Royal Irish Constabulary during the time of danger.
In my judgment, it is next to impossible to exaggerate the debt which this country and the inhabitants of Ireland owe to the Royal Irish Constabulary. Let us, in their hour of difficulty to-day, be careful to discharge that debt adequately, to discharge it not only with justice but with a measure of generosity. While I profoundly regret the disappearance of this force from Ireland, I recognise that under the legislation which this House has passed the disbandment of the force is unavoidable, but it is our duty, having regard to the record of these men, and more especially the recent appalling sufferings and experiences of these men, to make the terms of disbandment as generous and just as we can. The terms of disbandment in the Bill are not adequate. If this were a case of the disbandment of police under normal conditions, and in an undisturbed country, these terms, I agree, would be reasonable. But let us remember that these men are being disbanded under conditions abso-

2247
lutely unprecedented, possibly in this or any other country. Had they been disbanded in 1914, when the position of the country was fairly normal, the men could have gone back to their homes in Ireland and lived with their families in decent contentment, undisturbed by local assaults. But to-day owing to the orgy of crime which has taken place in Ireland since the rebellion of 1916, the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and their families are regarded with hatred and bitter animosity and an organised campaign of ferocity is being carried out against them. Most of them dare not return to their homes in Southern Ireland. They must either emigrate to Northern Ireland or to Great Britain.
I am not going to recall the black record of the last six years. But I think it is germane to the purpose of settling what terms should be offered to these men, to remember what they have suffered during the last two years, not to go any further back. In the year immediately preceding the truce, there were, according to statements given by the Chief Secretary in this House in February, no less than 15 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary brutally murdered and large numbers of murderous assaults and woundings of these men. One might suppose, and certainly the Chief Secretary in his more sanguine moments did suppose, that once the truce was signed, all these horrors and murders would cease. In fact, in making his arrangements with the Provisional Government, the right hon. Gentleman assumed there would be no trouble or disturbance after the date of the truce, and on that account made no provision for continuing the operation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. What has happened? Since the date of the truce, according to the best statistics I can get, 20 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been brutally murdered. The House will not forget that appalling case in which two of these unfortunate men, who were lying wounded in hospital in the West of Ireland, were assaulted by some intolerable fiends in human shape and murdered as they lay in their beds. During the period from the truce up to the other day, there have been something like 80 murderous attacks on members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Many of
2248
them have been wounded and many of them have had their homes burned and their property destroyed, but that is not all. One would imagine that, once these unfortunate men, these courageous servants of the British State, to whom we owe so much, had been disbanded, discharged from their duties and sent home, then, at any rate, these outrages and murders might cease and that for the rest of their lives they might have been allowed to remain in their little homes in Ireland with their wives and families, undisturbed by brutal and fiendish outrage. If anyone held that anticipation, it has been cruelly destroyed, because what has happened? Since these men have been disbanded, several of them have been murdered in getting to their own homes. Many of them have been threatened with death on arrival at their homes, unless they left within 24 hours, and in many, alas! far too many, cases even the wives and families of these men have been told that unless they clear out of the homes in which they have lived all their lives, they will be subject to similar outrage.
I have here numbers of the most pathetic and heartrending letters from men who have been disbanded, telling me how they have gone to their homes and have been met, in some cases in the middle of the night, just as they arrived, and told, "You must leave in 24 hours; you must leave your wife and family, the home in which you were brought up and in which you hope to spend the rest of your days, and you must go away—we care not whither—an exile to some foreign land." Why is this done? Because these men have been faithful servants, because they have served the English Crown and have been true to their trust. The House will allow me to read one of these letters to illustrate what has happened to these men. I do not give the name of the man nor the names of the places he mentions, because it would be dangerous to do so. He writes:
"I was disbanded on 4th instant. I left Dublin at a quarter to five for — I reached my destination at eight forty that evening and remained there until the following Saturday, four days. I left — for —" (his home) "and reached there at a quarter to nine. Immediately on arrival there I was arrested by about twenty armed men, some of whom carried revolvers, and they conveyed me to the old R.I.C. Barracks."

2249
A singular insult not unworthy of the men who perpetrated it. The letter continues:
"They searched me there and also my luggage. After about an hour they left me and told me to go at once out of the country. I came back to Dublin to-day."
That is only one of dozens of such cases. I have said that the wives and families were threatened also. Let me give only one reference to that. There will be found in the "Irish Independent," a Nationalist organ, of 8th April last, an announcement of a very remarkable action on the part of a public body, the Galway Urban Council. This council, by a majority of votes, ordered that the wives and families of Royal Irish Constabulary and Auxiliaries should be given two months' notice to quit their cottages and clear out of the country. What is the result of all this? The result is that, already, according to the estimate given to me, something like 1,500 of these men have been forced to fly from their homes and take refuge in this country. The number is placed at either 1,500 or 2,000. Many of them have not yet been able to bring their families. The Chief Secretary tells us he will provide them with travelling expenses. Of those who are still in Ireland, something like 25 per cent, have had to leave their homes and families in Southern Ireland and fly for refuge to Northern Ireland. This is a matter upon which the mind and feeling of this country, if the people only knew the facts, would be most deeply stirred and the people would urge the Government, as we urge them to-day, to do everything in their power to alleviate the sufferings of these men, to make it possible for them, if it can be done, to remain in Ireland, and if that be impossible, adequately to compensate them and enable them to live under a happier sky and in a freer world, than that in which they have lived in Southern Ireland. As illustrating the public feeling referred to, may I mention the very remarkable picture in this week's issue of "Punch," which very often seizes the feeling of the public and depicts it with striking accuracy. This cartoon shows an ex-Royal Irish Constabulary man, a fine, splendid, well-disciplined looking fellow, with his wife and family beside him. It pictures him having to clear out of his home and take refuge wherever charity will accept him
2250
or wherever fortune and fate will be kind to him.
In the circumstances I have described, I wish to suggest to the Chief Secretary certain points in regard to which this Bill can be improved. I believe I am speaking to sympathetic ears, and that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will do their utmost to accede to the claims I put forward. The first claim is this. By the terms of disbandment these men are granted what is called a disturbance allowance in case they have to leave home and go elsewhere. These terms are totally and entirely inadequate. A single man is awarded one month's pay to compensate him for having to leave his home and seek refuge in England or Scotland or elsewhere. A married man with two children is to get two months' pay, and a married man with three children three months' pay. The very minimum which the Chief Secretary should grant in cases of that sort is, in the case of the single man, three months' pay—little enough— in the case of the married man with two children, five months' pay, and in the case of the married man with three or more children six months' pay. Nor should these amounts be doled out to the men on the production of railway tickets and vouchers of hotel expenses and so forth. They should be free gifts, to enable the man to live, to give him a chance and to let him make his home in his new surroundings as best he can. These suggestions of mine are extremely moderate. I think I should have asked more, and I think the Chief Secretary will perhaps give more. If I compare the pay which these men are now drawing and the pensions which they will receive after disbandment, I find the average loss in the case of an officer is something like £5 10s. per week or rather more than £300 a year, and in the case of the men it is £2 10s. per week, or about £130 a year. That is the actual loss which these officers and men sustain by reason of their disbandment, instead of being allowed, as in happier circumstances they would be allowed, to continue their employment. I hope the Chief Secretary will frame the Money Resolution upon which this Bill will be considered in Committee in such a form, as to enable these points to be raised and adequately discussed.
The question of commutation of pensions will have to be considered. There

2251
is power given to the Treasury, in Subsection (4) of Clause 1, to commute pensions, and I want to know whether that power is to be exercised only in the cases where a man wants to emigrate to the Dominions or to some, foreign country. I imagine not, but I should like to have a definite assurance from the Chief Secretary, because it would be ludicrous to say: "Here you are; you have to uproot your old surroundings, and if you go to Canada you will be allowed to commute part of your pension, but if you go to England or Scotland you will not be allowed to commute a farthing of it in order to set you up in business." If that is not already made clear in the Bill, it ought to be. Further, this power of commutation ought not only to be granted to the Royal Irish Constabulary men who are disbanded under this Bill, but ought also to be granted to Royal Irish Constabulary men who are already in possession of pensions, but who, in many cases, will be subject to the same outrages in Ireland as these disbanded men and will have to leave their homes and settle in another country. There are other points which I will reserve for the Committee stage, but I must mention one really important question.
Under the Bill as it stands, the pension which is granted is to be suspended if the pensioner is employed in either a police force or in any other public service whatever. That is an absolutely unjustifiable restriction upon a man. He gets his pension under this Bill for his past services, as a reward for his fidelity and devotion, and are you going to say to him, "If you got no other employment you will enjoy your full pension, but if you choose to get another berth and desire to add to your existing pension, your pension will be suspended?" I say that, that would be an outrage, contrary to policy, decency, reason, and justice, and, therefore, I would urge the Attorney-General to bring that point before the Chief Secretary, so that he may be willing to grant that concession when the Bill comes into Committee.
I thank the House very much for having listened to what I have had to say. I can assure the House that there are few things I feel more deeply. The men of the Royal Irish Constabulary are some of the earliest memories of my child-
2252
hood, and I have seen them repeatedly since those days, in times of terrible danger and distress, doing their duty like loyal and brave men. I deeply regret that they are going to disappear from Ireland, a disappearance which I think is disastrous to the inhabitants of Ireland themselves, and I think the Members of this House, animated as they are by a desire to do justice to faithful servants of the Crown, will see that, so far as it lies within our power to make the lot of these men who have served us so faithfully not only bearable but a happy one, we shall leave nothing undone which can achieve that result.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I rise to say a few words for one reason, and for one reason alone. Is it that I feel, as one who has consistently supported the Irish Treaty, that all of us who voted for it are under a peculiar obligation to treat, not only justly, but generously, the men who are going to suffer in what we believe to be the general interests of public policy. On that ground I think there is a great deal in what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) has just said, with reference to the terms offered to the Royal Irish Constabulary under the Bill. Let me first ask the Attorney-General why it is that we are only now considering this Bill. I should have thought that a question of compensation of this kind ought to have been settled at once. As it is, it is now almost the middle of May, and all the remaining men of the Royal Irish Constabulary have, under Clause 1, to be disbanded by the 31st of this month. The Chief Secretary said, in the course of his speech, that he was anxious that the men should not be disbanded in great masses, but gradually, and obviously so, for very good reasons. Then how comes it about that the Government has left the settlement of this question so late that no less than half the men have got to be thrown upon the labour market, or wherever they have got to go, in the course of two or three weeks?
That is the first question I should like to ask, and, having asked it, let me say a word or two about the actual terms that are being offered to the men. The House is in this difficulty, that in the Committee stage of a Bill like this, no private Member will be able to propose better terms, for the reason that he would be imposing by his Amendment a charge

2253
upon the public purse. That means that those of us who think that the terms are not adequate have to deal to-day with what ordinarily would be Committee points; otherwise, we shall have no chance of making them. But before I come to one or two details where I think the Government is not sufficiently generous, let me put to the House this general point. If hon. Members will study the conditions that are being offered under this Bill they will see that, generally speaking, they differ very little from the conditions that were offered under the 1920 Act. The Chief Secretary alluded to certain small additional grants that were being offered the men—superannuation allowances, for instance, and grants for removal in certain cases—but, speaking generally and apart from these small exceptional differences, the terms that are being offered to-day are substantially the terms that were offered under the 1920 Act. That seems to me to be altogether wrong. Let hon. Members think of what has happened since the 1920 Act, and of all that these men have been through during the intervening period. Whatever one's views may be, and in whatever part of the House one sits, one cannot help feeling that these men ought to be offered substantially better terms than were offered under the 1920 Act.
Let me come to another point. It seems to me, as far as I understand the terms, that the senior men in the force are not being offered nearly good enough terms. The Chief Secretary made a great deal of the fact that a member of the force who entered it during the last six months would receive for life a pension of £46 a year. I am not going to say that that is too much, for I agree with the Chief Secretary that you cannot adequately compensate these men, but if a man who has only entered the force during the last six months is to receive £46 a year for life, I say it is altogether inadequate that the men at the top, who are now receiving more than £1,200 a year, should have as a maximum pension something in the nature of £500 or £600 a year. I hope that when it comes to the Financial Resolution, and when it comes to the Committee stage, the Government will make this difference right and will see that these senior men get much better terms than they will under the present proposals of the Bill.
2254
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York alluded to another very important question, the question of the removal allowances. There again I think they are inadequate, and I think my hon. and learned Friend was very moderate when he made the proposal that the periods of three, five, and six months should be substituted for the periods of one, two, and three months. I think that is a very moderate demand, and I hope the Attorney-General will take steps to see that that demand is satisfied.
Lastly, there is the position of the Hard Cases Tribunal. I think it is a good thing that there should be a Tribunal of that kind, but I think its activities might very well be extended. As it is, it is too circumscribed in the reference that is set cut in the financial White Paper. It might deal much more widely with cases than it appears to do under the last paragraph of the Government's White Paper. I am not at all sure that it would not really be better to have got rid of a great many of these complicated arrangements, to have got rid even of the Hard Cases Tribunal, and to have faced the fact that these men have been serving in quite unprecedented conditions during the last two years, and that all of them ought to receive a gratuity, a settled gratuity, based, no doubt, upon length of service, for the work that they have done during the last two years. I believe that if that proposal wore adopted, a proposal for which there is the precedent of the gratuities paid (hiring the War, it would do away with all the many complications that the Chief Secretary tried to describe today, and which are set forth in this White Paper. If, however, that cannot be done, I again wish to emphasise the urgent necessity of complying with the proposal made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York, that the removal allowance should be increased in the way he has suggested, and that we should remove from this House the slur of dealing ungenerously with a splendid body of men.
Brigadier-General Sir W. HACKET PAIN: As a Divisional Commissioner of the Royal Irish Constabulary from the time the appointment was first made until the so-called truce last year, I desire to bring before the House an aspect of the case of the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary which, so far, has not been

2255
touched on. When I first became a Divisional Commissioner I found in the North of Ireland that many of the officers and men had been drafted to the South, the North at that moment being peaceful, but precautions were being taken, the police barracks were to be put in a state of defence, and I wish the House to mark this point, that the policeman was to be turned into a soldier. The men of the Royal Irish Constabulary had a certain amount of military training besides their ordinary constables' work. They were taught to use a carbine, which, from a military point of view, is a Very inferior weapon, and to shoot a certain number of rounds, and they were taught the use of the bayonet, but their chief weapon was the baton. They were really trained as, and were, policemen. But, owing to the emergency, they were to be turned into soldiers, and taught the use of the service rifle, bombs, rockets, Very pistol, machine gun; in fact, they ceased to function as policemen, and became soldiers. Many of the serving constables, when they were turned from policemen into soldiers, were found to be too old for military activities, and, consequently, these men were summarily retired from the force, and so lost their claim to the better pensions which have been recently granted to their comrades. Having by every means in my power endeavoured to raise the moral of these men, and fit them for their military duties, I now find that they are unable to live in Ireland, the country of their birth, and I consider that the most generous terms should be given to these men in addition to what has already been promised. In proportion to the activities that they have willingly carried out, their living in Ireland is made more impossible, and I feel very deeply in this matter, because in carrying out the orders of the Government, I, to the best of my ability, in every sort of way, increased their activities which were most willingly and devotedly given, and in that way I am afraid I have done them a bad turn.
These remarks refer to the whole of the Royal Irish Constabulary. But the class to which I wish particularly to draw attention are those men who do not benefit by the new scale of pensions who have come in since then, owing to their having been turned out of the Force, because they were too old or not sufficiently active
2256
for their military duties. I do not think that these men should suffer. I know this means a question of money, but I think the House, which has approved the policy that has done away with this magnificent Force, should sec that every man in that Force is properly looked after, and that not one officer or man should be made to suffer from unexpected legislation.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I only-wish to say a few words in support of what the hon. Baronet the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) said just now in reference to increasing the amount of the disturbance allowance from one, two and three months respectively, to three months in the case of a single man, five months in the case of a married man with two children, and six months in the case of a married man with three children These allowances are roughly an average rate of £16 a month,. and I suggest to the House that telling a man he will get a sum of £32 to bring his wife and family over from Ireland, is not a sufficient or a generous amount to give him to enable him to start again in this country. I agree that some of the pensions given are comparatively generous, more especially in the case of those younger members of the force who have only served a very short time, but in the case of these men, many of whom have had a little farm in the country, and have got a comfortable home together, and so on, cannot turn out of their home, bring their wife, children, and furniture over to this country, and set up a home again for £32. That is not enough money to bring them over from the West of Ireland and set them up here. The amount offered by the Government is only allowed with the proviso that the men have to produce a voucher as to their actual expenses in moving over. It would be far better, and the right, generous, and proper thing, if the Chief Secretary were to take power in the Financial Resolution to increase that amount, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for York, and give disturbance allowance, without any voucher, in the form of a bonus or gratuity to these men, as a real disturbance allowance, to enable them to set themselves up and carry on in this country in their entirely new surroundings. It would not cost a large sum of money. We worked it out in a private Committee the other day at something, I think, less

2257
than £200,000 for the whole force, and that, I submit, would very largely meet the deep sense of grievance they have at present in that respect.
There are other matters in connection with this Bill which require consideration. One, which was partly alluded to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), is that, although the pensions of the younger men are, to a certain extent, generous, the older men— men who have really qualified for pension before—get no increase whatever. A man, say, with under 10 years' service does get 12 years added to his service in counting his pension, but men who have actually served a sufficient time to get their pension—and there are men who have not only served their full time, but, instead of retiring, stayed on in the service to support the Government in troublous times for two years beyond their retiring age—get no advantage whatever. That is a case which ought to be met by some special addition, by taking power to get more money in the Financial Resolution.
As regards the tribunal which has been set up to deal with special cases, that, of course, is a good thing, but that tribunal is sitting here in London, and I am informed by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary that a great many of the men do not like the idea of sending in their claim to a tribunal in London, because they know that that again will be submitted to Ireland for inquiries to be made there, and they know there is no secrecy in the post, and no secrecy in the Castle—at least, they, and, I believe, a great many other people, too, are under the impression that there is a leakage, and that these men are bound to suffer if they put forward these claims here. It might be possible to have a separate tribunal to deal with those men who are able to stay there At the time the amount of disturbance allowance was fixed by the Government, it was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers and, I believe, the opinion of General Tudor, who was the Chief of Police, that a large number of the Royal Irish Constabulary would be able to remain in Ireland—that they would not be molested.
What are the facts? Up to the end of last month 3,100 of the old Royal Irish Constabulary had been disbanded. Of those, 1,254 were compelled to come to Great Britain owing to threats. The
2258
total number remaining in Ireland was 1,846, of which number 960 were driven out of their homes by the Irish Republican Army, in spite of the loud-sounding amnesties and so on of Mr. Michael Collins's Government, to which Ireland has been handed over by this House, and which is quite unable to enforce the law or protect any citizen in Ireland, with the result that the insurgent Irish Republican Army are doing what they like and ordering people about all over the country, and the 960 members remaining in Ireland have been chased out of their homes. I have in my hand over 50 different cases of the way in which this was done. I do not wish to read a large number of them, but I should like to draw attention to one or two. In Water ford two disbanded members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who returned to live in Portlaw, were served with typewritten notices to leave the "Waterford Brigade area" within 24 hours. The notices wore served I y a member of the Irish Republican Army, who occupied Portlaw Barracks, in the name of the Provisional Government. I will give another case in Waterford. A notice, signed "Thomas Keating, Officer Commanding No. 2 Battalion," was served on an ex-sergeant to leave the area within 24 hours. Keating took over Waterford Barracks in the name of the Provisional Government. Those are two cases where the so-called officers of the Provisional Government in Ireland are the very people responsible for intimidating and chasing these men away from Ireland—a very pretty commentary upon the power of Mr. Collins to control his own people!
Another point arises in reference to the separation allowance, and here again I would ask the Attorney-General to make a note of this particular point. The Government have given a separation allowance of 3s. a day to those men who have to come over from Ireland. That sum is totally inadequate. They all complain that they cannot possibly keep their wives and families on their pensions, plus only that amount of 3s. a day, and even that is only to go on for three months. The case of the Auxiliaries and temporary men has also been mentioned by the Chief Secretary. The case of the Auxiliary Cadets has been brought up once or twice in this House recently, that is to say, the case of those men whom the

2259
Government got to sign on before the truce, and then deliberately broke faith with their contracts. About 300 of these men took on in July of last year. Many of them are now destitute, and almost on the verge of starvation in this country. Many of these temporary men, who carried on their duties through the most dangerous times in Ireland during the last three years, are also destitute, and here again I would ask the Attorney-General to make a note of this point. These men have come over here. It has been decided that they are not eligible for unemployment benefit, because, of course, they were not insured. Surely the Government ought to give them some special allowance in these, times, when it is quite impossible for them to get work. They ought to get some special allowance in the same way as the soldiers did after the Great War.
6.0 P.M.
It makes one have a feeling of deep shame to come across men, who gave support to this country in the War, and afterwards did splendid work in Ireland, now being turned out with a £10 bonus, and told to clear out and look out for themselves. They come over to this country and are quite unable to find employment, and as they are debarred from unemployment benefit the only thing open to them is the workhouse. I suggest that the Government should take some steps in the matter. I sincerely hope the Chief Secretary will give us some assurance on the point when he replies. There is just one other matter I desire to raise, and that is with reference to the motor transport men, about 500. They come under this Clause. First of all, the men are not insured. Most of these men would have been insured in England, and then, if unemployed, would have been eligible for unemployment benefit. These men have a particular grievance in respect to that, and as regards unemployment benefit.
The second thing that I would like to know is whether in reference to Circular No. 2677, issued by Dublin Castle authorities, the Government will carry out the pledge which they gave to give the men a gratuity of £25 for each part of a year over the original 12 months. I would like my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General to see if the Chief Secretary cannot be induced to carry out what was promised
2260
by his own officials. I hope that these extra allowances will be given, that the men of the temporary forces will be dealt with generously, and some allowance given to them for the next few months to prevent them from having to go to the workhouse or starve. If these things were done, I believe that the feeling of resentment and the feeling that they have been ungenerously dealt with will be removed from the minds of these splendid men who are now being disbanded.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: There has been a remarkable unanimity in the the Debate on one point, and that is, however generous may be the financial grants to be made in settlement of the constabulary claims, the details and distribution of this money is not equitable as between the men with short service and those who have given their lives to the Royal Irish Constabulary. I think it is unreasonable if you give a district inspector who served only a few months a life pension of £120 a year, you should limit the man who reached a far higher pay and spent perhaps 30 or 35 years in the service to a sum of £600, which is very much less than they are at present getting. It seems to be forgotten by those who framed these terms that this arrangement, under which a man adds 12 years in some cases and 10 years in others to the number of years he has served in arriving at his pensionable service, is absolutely useless to any man who has served for 30 years. The limiting to the two-thirds maximum of all retiring allowances means that many of the men will get little or no benefit from these added years.
The terms, I think, are more inadequate in view of the fact that so many of these men will have to be expatriated and have to start afresh in what, to them will be a strange country where it is very difficult to find employment. To my mind, they have been subjected to something very like a breach of faith. The Chief Secretary said over and over again, not only in this House but in addresses to the Royal Irish Constabulary in their own country, that he at least would see that they did not suffer for their patriotism and for their ungrudging work. What do we then find? Not that the men are getting the terms of the 1920 Act, but in reality terms which are much less favourable, and for this reason: under the 1920

2261
Act the men were to have not only got the added years which are now secured, but they were in addition to have six years on full pay. That was far larger payment, and there was adequate time in which to look around for further employment. There is no doubt now that they have been docked of these six years, which they were assured of in the original terms, that they are nothing like so well treated, in spite of the fact that their position in Ireland is nothing like so good as it was, and they have really far greater need for compensation than ever was contemplated when the Act of 1920 was passed.
There is also this point; that a pension reasonable enough, and perhaps even generous for an old man who has got no dependants, is often very insufficient for a man in the prime of life who is responsible for bringing up his family. The trouble in this respect becomes aggravated toy the higher pay you get in the service, because men who are very valuable in the Royal Irish Constabulary owing to their long experience, have nothing like the same earning power as they had in the higher grade when they have to go outside, and they cannot possibly expect to land in equally well-paid civil employment. It seems to me to involve a point of very great hardship on these middle-aged men, who are being summarily retired from the only work in which they have been trained, and it does compel comparison with their one-time payment and the income to which they have been immediately reduced.
I have had some pitiable cases put before me. In one case of men who at one step were reduced to half and less than half of what they were enjoying, and who have to face the prospect of having to withdraw their children from school, and to deprive their SOUK, who are growing up, of that start in life to which they had looked forward for many years. I could give one or two of these cases of men who are serving in what is known as temporary appointments. Take the post of Divisional Commissioner. Some of the men occupying these posts were appointed from the Royal Irish Constabulary. The post was known to be a very dangerous one. Two of the men thus appointed have paid with their lives for their loyalty. There is a precedent in this position of Divisional Commis-
2262
sioner and for what I ask. Mr. Hird, who was a previous occupant of such a post, was pensioned in 1898 on two-thirds of his then pay of £l,000 a year. He received £666 a year under conditions which were far less dangerous than those which have been faced by his successors in the post of Divisional Commissioner and under present-day circumstances. The present Divisional Commissioners were never warned at the time of their appointments that their posts were temporary. They took these posts without any question and faced what is admitted to be the most dangerous occupation in the whole of the constabulary work in Ireland. After some weeks they were told that their rank would not be substantive, but that they would really be graded for the purposes of pension as County Inspectors. What does that mean? That the amount of £l,250 will be dropped in one step to £600.
I have spoken to the Chief Secretary and, as always when he is approached about these matters, he expressed very great sympathy and assured me that these cases should be dealt with by the tribunal which has been set up to consider cases of exceptional hardship. What these men feel is that it is extremely difficult to see how they are to argue exceptional hardship before a tribunal which can point to the fact that the Chief Secretary has retained as a regular basis for pension that they shall be retired on two-thirds of the salary of a county inspector. They fear further that under paragraph (e) the powers of these exceptional hardship cases will be limited by the two previous paragraphs (a) and (b). I want to ask the Chief Secretary when he replies to make it quite clear to these and the other men who served in these temporary appointments, that this tribunal will be empowered to deal with their cases and will be enabled to recommend, not only a gratuity such as this mentioned in paragraph (b). but even an extra retiring allowance under paragraph (c). If the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point and give a definite assurance it would, at any rate, until their cases are tried, do a good deal to allay the bitter anxieties now being felt.
I want the right hon. Gentleman also to see if he can give any consideration to the men who have missed their pensions in the Royal Irish Constabulary by

2263
having engaged for the Army for the period of the War. I have had some very hard cases brought to me. There was one man who had considerable service, something over 10 years, in the Royal Irish Constabulary before the War, and served in the Army from the outbreak of hostilities until the end of last year. He then was arranging to get back into the Royal Irish Constabulary at the moment this disbandment was announced. That man will get neither service pension nor constabulary pension unless the right hon. Gentleman can give power to a special hardship Committee to deal with cases of this kind which are not strictly pensionable within the four corners of the Bill as it is drawn. The hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) mentioned the case of 500 motor mechanics, but he did not, I think, deal with the terms on which they have been discharged. To my mind they are grossly inadequate. These men have been sent away with only a week's notice, and a gratuity of £10. Other men who applied to be taken on as mechanics, but who failed to pass the test, were taken into the subordinate posts of drivers. Becoming permanent constables they have got a life pension, although their qualifications were not high enough to enable them to be accepted as mechanics, for which they had applied. Consider that these men are only getting £10, whereas the men in the auxiliary division who served on a somewhat lengthy contract got a minimum of £70 in most cases, which is a considerably additional sum. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that here is a case to be specially considered either by the tribunal to be set up or by some other means. I wish to add my voice to those who have claimed better consideration for these men. I know the right hon. Gentleman is trying to accommodate these refugees in this country, but it is not easy to house them. It is not desirable in the interests of their finding employment that they should all be concentrated in one building, where they would impede each other in applying for work. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to try and find some vacant accommodation for small numbers of them in as many centres of employment in this country as he can.
It ought to be possible in every military barracks to find room for half a
2264
dozen of these urgent cases. The provisions of the disbandment terms allow for commutation of pension in the case of men who have to migrate oversea, but there is no provision for the men who emigrate from Ireland to England. Can the right hon. Gentleman not take some steps by which these men shall also be allowed to obtain a reasonable sum to enable them to buy a house or start business in this country? I hope he will deal with this point which I know affects a great many of these men, and I trust that he will make it clear that they will be able to claim for malicious injuries in due course and not lose their rights by having to flee the country and have the difficulty of producing witnesses after the lapse of a considerable period of time.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the appeal made to him to improve the terms of the disturbance allowance and raise it to three, five, and six months instead of one, two, and three. It does not amount to a very big sum. A single man would get £48; a married man with two children, £80; and a married man with a larger family, £96. Certainly that will not cover more than the loss to which these unfortunate men will be put. It is necessary, if they are to be saved from unnecessary harrassing, that they should be given this money unconditionally, and not have to prove every little detail of expense as seems to me to be anticipated in the rules before the tribunal. It is perfectly reasonable to give these lump sums in order that the men can make their own arrangements. A great many of them will not be in a position to prove malicious injury because their case will have practically been abandoned. They have left their furniture behind because of the impossibility of doing anything but escape with their families. Under the conditions to which they are subject, it is out of the question to get transport to remove their little possessions, and it is imperative, if they are not to be put to grievous loss, that they should be given lumps sums on a reasonable scale which will enable them to re-establish themselves in homes in this country. The disturbance allowance is limited to a period of six months.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: It is two months.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: My hon. and gallant Friend says it is two months,

2265
but surely that is an unnecessary provision. I think that is an insane proposal because the only hope for Ireland is that it may settle down after the election. It has been continually said that if the people now suffering in the South of Ireland will only "stick it" a little longer perhaps conditions will improve. Under these circumstances, surely it is unwise to make men feel that they must clear out within two months or lose this payment, and in the interests of Ireland's future I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to add another financial pressure to all the other forms of pressure which are now being brought on these unfortunate men leaving the country of their birth.
The Amendments which we are asking for would not in the aggregate cost any very large sum, but they would remedy the worst hardship of those who are exiled from their country, and of the old men who have spent the best years of their life in ungrudging service, and who are denied very high remuneration in an alternative form of work. I know that you are giving generous terms to the younger men who form the bulk of the force, but I hope that the House will insist that full consideration shall be afforded to the men who are losing their homes and their honourable career so that the prospects of their young families will not be sacrificed because through no fault of their own this country no longer requires their services.
Colonel NEWMAN: At the opening of his speech the Chief Secretary made a remarkable statement. He told us that the compensation and pensions under this Bill were to be paid for under an arrangement made by the Irish Free State Government but that they would be guaranteed by Great Britain.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I said that they are to be paid by the Imperial Government, which is to be reimbursed Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland under certain terms which have been laid down.
Colonel NEWMAN: The Chief Secretary bases his case on the Act of 1920 which lays down that any pension allowance or gratuity which may become payable to the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Royal Irish Constabulary, shall be paid for out of moneys provided by the United Kingdom, and any sums so paid shall be made good in accordance with
2266
regulations made by the Treasury. That provision is all right for the North of Ireland but not for the South.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: Under Article 10 of the Treaty, the Southern Irish Government pledges itself to recoup the Government for the pensions and so on of the permanent Royal Irish Constabulary, except in cases of men recruited during the last two years.
Colonel NEWMAN: Is that a lump sum? I take it to mean that there will be one final settlement after arbitration. As I understand the matter, the Imperial Government will be able to recoup themselves every year from the Free State Government the amount which it pays in pensions every year to the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Chief Secretary has told us that it was with profound regret that he had to disband this magnificent force, because he has had to disband one of the most splendid forces of gendarmerie that the world has ever seen, and this in a country which is in a state of lawlessness. There is one thing which a great many people in this country seem to forget, and it is the claim which the Royal Irish Constabulary have on our sympathies because it is not an alien force. It is not a force like the Varangian Guards of the Byzantine Empire or the Swiss Guards in the 18th century under the French King. As far as the Royal Irish Constabulary proper are concerned, I do not suppose that 2 per cent, of their number are not Irishmen. So far as social standing goes in Ireland or education or being a picked force, the Royal Irish Constabulary stand alone.
If you take the case of an Irish farmer, farming perhaps 100 acres of land, his eldest son would be brought up on the farm, his second son would join the Royal Irish Constabulary, and his third son, being his mother's pet, would be sent to Maynooth. This force was composed mainly of Irishmen. The homes of which I have spoken are going to be broken up, the second son is going to be turned adrift, and the reason is obvious. We are not living in 1920 or in the atmosphere of that year, but we are living in a totally different atmosphere. We British are being turned out of our country, and the Royal Irish Constabulary, as our servants, must go with us. Supposing that Belgium had been under German domination and

2267
then the Germans, having served their time, had left the country. The Belgians would not allow the German gendarmerie to remain, and they would have to go.
We have to face the facts as we find them, and we have to remember that Ireland's great loss is going to be someone else's great gain. A magnificent body of men is, apparently, going to be thrown out of Ireland, although they are Irishmen. They will have to go somewhere, and they cannot go to the other place unless they have the means and opportunity of doing so. Looking through this Bill, and the Amendments which have been put down, one of the most important matters, to my mind, is the commutation of grants. We have been asked to put down an Amendment in Committee proposing that up to 50 per cent, the amount of each man's pension shall be held available for commutation. That will give a man who has a pension of, say, £3 a week, a chance of making a start either in this country or abroad. Apparently it is agreed that when a man goes abroad he shall be able to commute his pension, but not, I think, up to 50 per cent. I suggest that, whether he goes abroad or remains in this country, he should be able to commute his pension, not to a small amount, but up to 50 per cent. I am not saying that what this country is doing in regard to pensions is altogether ungenerous. We are giving a man who has served 10 years a pension of £1 18s. a week, and a man who has served 15 years £2 9s. 3d. If to that be joined some allowance to enable him and his wife to get away, if he be allowed to commute his pension, and if we do what the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) told us we ought to do with regard to certain higher grades, I do not think this country can be said to be behaving ungenerously towards this great and gallant force.
We have, however, to consider the future of these men as a whole. There are something like 8,000 of them, and half of them, I understand, are married men with families. Would it not be possible in some way to hold that force, or, at any rate, a portion of it, together? A large number of the special division of the Royal Irish Constabulary—the Englishmen in the force, who were specially recruited—are about to go to
2268
Palestine under General Tudor for service as special constabulary there. Would it not be possible to make use of the younger unmarried men of this great force? How valuable would be a force of 2,000 of the Royal Irish Constabulary, say, in Constantinople to-day, to keep law and order. If I were commanding in Constantinople to-day—and I say it without disrespect to that great regiment, the Irish Guards, which has just gone there—I would very much rather have at my disposal, to keep law and order, 500 of the Royal Irish Constabulary than a battalion of the Irish Guards at full war strength. Would it not be possible to do something to keep these men together, should they wish it, by employing them in this way at Constantinople or elsewhere I With regard to the married men and their wives and families, could we not do something like that which the Roman Empire used to do, that is to say, found a military colony, getting these men and their wives and families emigrated in a body, say, to Western Australia or some other portion of our Dominions overseas, where they could settle down as friends, living together, and their children could grow up together. It might cost a bit of money, but in the case of these men, if they could commute their pensions, I think that, with money, energy and determination, and the acquiescence of the Governments of the Overseas Dominions, something could be done. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to make this Bill a better one than it is. It is not a bad Bill, but it does need alteration here and there, and I think we shall have the sympathy of the Chief Secretary in our endeavours.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken is so important that I venture to intervene at once in order that I may reassure him, and also the House, if they have any misgiving on the point. I understood the hon. and gallant Member to be in some doubt as to the source from which these pensions would in future be paid. There must be no doubt whatever about that. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at Sub-section (7) of Clause 1, he will see that it states that:
"All compensation payable to officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary under this Act (including any compensation

2269
which is to be treated as so payable), and any pensions and gratuities granted to widows and children of such officers and constables in pursuance of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."
And, as ancillary to that, it will be seen that the next Sub-section, Sub-section (8), provides that the powers of the Lord Lieutenant, and so on, are to be exercised by the Treasury. It will also be seen that the Schedule includes a paragraph under which any reference to the Lord Lieutenant shall be construed as a reference to the Treasury. I am far from saying that these provisions are necessary for the purpose of payment, but they are for the purpose of getting rid of difficulties and providing that the administration of the sums voted by Parliament shall be under the authority of and exercised by Parliament. Therefore, all those who are entitled to receive this money will receive it under the authority of and from the Treasury—not on a mere guarantee, but direct. I cannot put that more plainly, and I hope that it satisfies and reassures the hon. and gallant Member.
Colonel NEWMAN: I am quite satisfied as to the pensions of the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but where does the British taxpayer come in? How is he to recover the money?
Sir E. POLLOCK: I am afraid the British taxpayer is going to pay for it in the first instance. I cannot offer him a higher or a better place, qua taxpayer, than that he should pay the taxes, and call attention to the fact that his representatives in Parliament, including the hon. and gallant Member, have provided that money shall be provided by him in order to pay these pensions. I thought that the difficulty which presented itself to the hon. and gallant Member was as to whether they wore to get the money direct from the Treasury, or merely on a guarantee of the Treasury. My answer to that is that it will be absolutely direct. Perhaps my right hon. Friend may find himself in a greater difficulty when he has to go to the Treasury to ascertain what quantum he can in order to assist in relieving the British taxpayer.
Perhaps I may also say a word or two on one or two smaller points, which are in a large measure Committee points. The hon. and learned Member for York
2270
(Sir J. Butcher) raised a point on Subsection (3) of Clause 1, which deals with the question of the re-employment of these men. The hon. and learned Member suggested that in no circumstances should their pension be considered where they are re-employed. Of course, it has often happened that this House has had to consider pension schemes, and the problem which the hon. and learned Member raises is an old one, but I think he will see that the provision made here is not ungenerous, and is in accord with the usual scheme adopted in such Acts for a similar purpose.
Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the pension is only suspended if a man gets employment in a police force, and that there is no suspension when he goes into any other kind of service? For some reason or other, however, the pension is suspended here, firstly, when he goes into a police force, and, secondly, when he goes into another public office.
Sir E. POLLOCK: I am not unacquainted with the points which the hon. and learned Member puts to me; but I would remind the House that this is a matter for consideration in Committee. It will, perhaps, also be wise to consider that a definite scheme has been laid down and is largely adhered to, as is illustrated by the fact that we have to go back to the public services dealt with under the Act of 1892 in order to find the conditions, and that system has been developed since. To reassure hon. Members, I would remind them that the Bill provides, in sub-section (3) of Clause 1, that
"if any officer or constable takes service in any police force, or is appointed to any office remunerated out of moneys provided by Parliament "—
I do not know why it should only be in the case of a police force. Something is to be said for an office which has the advantage of being remunerated by moneys directly voted by this House—
"or to any office which is a public office within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1892,"—
and then comes this very important phrase—
"and on his ultimate retirement therefrom is awarded a pension …"
Therefore, a case in which pension is taken into account must fulfil a threefold

2271
condition. He must either be engaged in a police force, or appointed to an office remunerated out of moneys provided by Parliament, or to an office under the Superannuation Act, 1892—and in all three cases, it must carry a pension. Whether that be fair or not is a matter which we can consider in Committee, but, for the purpose of enabling hon. Members to make up their minds about it, it may not be unwise at this moment to call attention to the actual terms. If it be an unwise provision, it can be altered in Committee,: if, on the whole, it commends itself to the Committee and to the House, it can be adhered to. After all, it is not a matter upon which one can lay down a definite or cast-iron rule; it is a matter for consideration by Members of this House. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) suggested that the powers of the tribunal were too narrow, and referred to the last Clause of the Memorandum on the financial provisions. I think, however, that he had looked only at Command Paper 1649. I do not know whether he had in mind the terms of Command Paper 1618. The powers of the tribunal are really very wide indeed. In Command Paper 1649 they are summarised, and summarised rather shortly. They are set out at greater length in Command Paper 1618. They include the power to recommend

"(a) the extension up to a maximum of six months' pay of the disturbance allowance for the purpose of removal which may be granted under Heading 2 above;

(b) the payment of gratuities in addition to disturbance allowance up to a maximum of six months' pay;

(c) such other exceptional provision as any individual case submitted to it may appear to require."

Sir S. HOARE: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but could the tribunal deal with such a case as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds mentioned, namely, the case of a divisional commissioner? Perhaps, if the Attorney General is not able to answer that, the Chief Secretary will do so when he comes to reply.
Sir E. POLLOCK: I have my own opinion at the present time, namely, that it is not intended to leave an untrammelled discretion as to the amount of pension. I think the pensions are laid down by statutory authority.
2272
The powers of the tribunal are ancillary to that, and exceptional provision can be made where individual cases require it, but I do not think they can abrogate the whole table of pensions, and say that they have power to deal afresh with every case independently of statutory authority.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: My right hon. Friend said they could only deal with individual cases. Does that debar them from dealing as a whole class with certain men who were not established under the 1920 Act?
Sir E. POLLOCK: I really could not answer that question. It will be for the tribunal to say whether certain cases come within a class or are to be treated as separate individuals. That must be in their discretion. I could not say that as a matter of law or that there will be any definite decision upon it. One must give the tribunal certain credit for discretion, and they will have the facts of these cases before them. A point which arises on every scheme of pensions is, Have you provided fairly between the men who have given long service and those who have only been employed for a short time? You have to consider carefully how you will deal with the different standards of service. After very careful thought and consideration by the Departments concerned, which is perhaps one reason why the Bill was not introduced at an earlier date, the standard which is set up by the Bill has been laid down. I do not think, fairly looked at, the terms are ungenerous. Indeed. I think it is because hon. Members have not been able—and I am not surprised—fully to appreciate how generous the terms are that some criticism has been directed against the Bill. Probably my right hon. Friend at some time in the course of the passage of the Bill in Committee will be able to submit a table which will enable hon. Members at a glance to see what are the provisions made in different cases and at different periods of service. With that I think they will be able to see that, in addition to the terms laid down in the Act of 1920, very considerable advances have been made for the purpose of meeting the greater disorder which has existed in Ireland since that date, and the needs of the men, and also making some con-

2273
tribution from this House for the great gallantry they have shown in difficult circumstances.
Mr. MOLES: Hon. Members who, like myself, come from the North of Ireland, find ourselves in this happy position, that the case which it would have devolved upon us to make has been made most generously, handsomely, and adequately by the representatives of English seats. The case we should have desired to make for the police force as a whole could not have been better presented, and from every quarter of the House there has come the most generous testimony to the unflinching fidelity, the unfaltering courage and the unfailing devotion to duty of the finest police force in the world. If you want to test the character and the quality of their service, a figure or two given by the Chief Secretary at that box a little while ago will tell you their story in language which is the most brilliant testimonial which could be given them. One in every twenty of the police force in Ireland was killed in a period of two years and one in every twelve, in addition to that, wounded. There is no police force in the whole world with a record such as that. No police force has ever been put to such a test and certainly none whatever has responded to it in the same superb way. The Chief Secretary has said, with a large measure of truth, that the Government has dealt handsomely in the main with the police force, and as a general proposition I am not here to challenge that. It is when you come to look into close details that you find here and there indications of meanness and parsimony which are a blemish and a blot upon the Bill, and it is a curious thing that in the history of the Government in dealing with this police force you get that running all through. If you look at the old manual, going back to the period in which a constable was paid £54 a year, embargoes were laid upon him. His wife must move in a certain social set. She must not keep fowls, she must not even compete in the greengrocery trade, and they laid this last injunction upon him that any policeman enjoying a salary of £54 a year who was found keeping racehorses would be dismissed instanter. I believe it is true that not one, policeman was ever dismissed for such a cause.
2274
These men have devoted themselves to the police force as their life's calling, as other men devote themselves to medicine or the law. They find themselves now, through no fault of their own, with their whole career instantly arrested. Their very training and their very calling ex-elude them for avocations which would otherwise be open to them. The painful and terrible circumstances under which they have had to discharge their duty during the last three or four years, the criminal organisation which hunted them day and night and swept away more than half a battalion of them to their graves, has so poisoned and embittered the whole atmosphere of a great part of Ireland that there is neither work for them nor permission for them to live in the country in which they were born and which no other class of citizens have so well served. One would have imagined that the Government, which has so generously recognised their services, would have faced the facts and said, "These men have earned their pensions as of right. They are given them as a matter of simple justice. If they are able to find avocations which will occupy them honourably for the rest of their lives, good luck to them." But they do no such thing. They pay them lip service, and if any of them have the good luck to get into the police force here—and I would not object to the temporary cancellation of the pensions under such circumstances—they forfeit at once what you have admitted you give them as a matter of simple justice. If you give it them as a matter of simple justice, the instant you withdraw it you at once perpetrate upon them a gross injustice which you cannot defend. I am not going into details. My hon. and learned Friend opposite, who has been a faithful friend of the Irish police force, and who has very often assisted those, like myself, who have made themselves the defenders and supporters of law and order, has given instances, and so has my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), to whom I must equally pay a compliment.
The question of the cost, of removal has been touched upon, but one very serious aspect of it has been entirely lost sight of. It has been said that the facility for removing from every part of Ireland will be equal. It is not equal. Take the case of officers and men who find themselves in

2275
Clare or some of the more remote parts of Connaught. The cost would be practically prohibitive, and it would be a charge upon the salaries of these men. Life has been terribly difficult for them. Upon occasions they have had to commandeer food when those who had it for sale refused to sell it, and when they come to remove their poor possessions and seek an asylum in this country, or go across the seas, expatriated from the country in which they were born because they served it faithfully, if you are then to squabble with them for a few miserable shillings, is it not pitiable and contemptible that the Government should stand upon a point like that. I hope my right hon. Friend when we go into Committee will look into matters of this kind and that we shall see a spirit much more worthy of this nation and the House towards the men who have so well served them. Another point was touched upon. Every officer in Ireland is subject to a hardship which I think was admitted, and which I think up to the moment has not been remedied. In view of the difficulty and danger of transport by rail and in other ways, every officer was forced to purchase a motor car. The Government bought the cars and delivered them to each, and deducted a given sum per month from his salary for the price of the car. The cars were bought at a time when the cost was high. The price has fallen a good deal now. These men find themselves out of occupation, and they do not need the cars, but the Government insist upon their paying the last shilling of the price. That is unfair. These men would never have had the cars but for the fact that they were discharging Government duties and acting upon strict instructions. The least the Government could do would be to take all these cars over from the officers at a fair and reasonable valuation and return them as much as they think is fair. Indeed, I think in the circumstances the Government might go a great deal further and cancel the remaining instalments or give these men some kind of chance of engaging in some sort of business where the cars would be useful to them for the sum they have already paid.
7.0 P.M.
I should like to call attention to what is really more or less a disciplinary matter. We are in this difficulty, that when we call attention to these Amendments which are desirable, they all involve
2276
some measure of increased expenditure, and we are precluded by the rule from moving any such Amendments, that being reserved exclusively for representatives of the Government. For nearly two years nearly every promotion which has been made in the police force has been what is called a temporary appointment—temporary sergeant, temporary head constable, temporary district or county inspector, and so on. If the House merely had regard to that and did not know exactly what is involved, they might not perceive that this is one of the grossest injustices which could be done to these men. Let me begin with the lower ranks. Take the temporary sergeant. In the ordinary course that appointment ought to become permanent. It has been held up beyond the usual period at which it ought to be confirmed, and when the temporary sergeant comes to be disbanded he will, in a great many cases, actually receive a less pension than if he were treated as a constable for the full period of service. Surely that is an injustice. I know that the Chief Secretary is, first of all, too fair-minded, and, secondly, that he has too warm an appreciation of the services these men have so splendidly rendered to permit that to be done. I have asked him to take the case of these temporary appointments into consideration. The same is true of head constables. Take the case of the third-class district inspector. In a year and a half a man graded as third-class would be automatically graded as second-class, and would be entitled to the income of that class. But they make him a temporary appointment, and that automatic rule is suspended. That man is now to be dealt with as a third-class district inspector, and gets the pension that follows accordingly. It is as gross a wrong as could be done. My Labour friends, if these men were trade unionists, would say that it was a violation of trade union principles, and we ought not to treat public servants any worse than trade unions treat their members. That really covers almost the entire ground that I wish now to traverse. One point in the course of the speech of the Chief Secretary in submitting this Bill was dealt with by interpolation. He admitted the injustice of the matter to which I then called attention, and he has promised to give us redress when we come to the Committee stage. I leave these

2277
matters I have submitted to the House, and I ask them to meet them because we are doing an injustice which I am sure the Chief Secretary does not wish to impose on the police force, and which this House has never sanctioned. I hope the Chief Secretary, when we get into Committee, will have considered these matters, and that as he is the only person who can amend the Bill he will take the necessary steps to do so.
Major HILLS: I rise for the purpose of reinforcing the appeal that has been made by so many Members, and by none more eloquently than by my hon. Friend who spoke last (Mr. Moles). If my appeal is made with less eloquence, as it certainly will be, it will be uttered with the same sincerity, and I hope the combined effect of an international attack on the right hon. Gentleman will have some result. I should like to make two observations. First of all, I noticed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was very emphatic that the British taxpayer had to pay all these allowances. I entirely accept that. I think it is an obligation they have to shoulder, but I do hope the Government, of which my right hon. and learned Friend is a distinguished member, will do its best to extract the money out of the Free State Government. After all, we hold their bond, and I hope it is worth something and will be enforced. I want to deal with a few other points which have, been referred to in the discussion, and, first of all, to reinforce what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), that of all people it is the long-service men who ought to have generous treatment. I believe a constable who has served for only a month or two months will get a pension of £46 a year. From the detached position of an English taxpayer I frankly think that is too much, but when you come to the top of the scale, these pensions are much too small. I would much rather see the money spent on the older men who have given their lives to this work than on the young men who have recently joined, who have all their lives before them, and who could make a career in other spheres of activity.
With regard to the disturbance allowance, I want to ask the Chief Secretary
2278
a question. In the disbandment circular it was stated that men were given a period of six months in which to decide whether they claimed this disturbance allowance or not. I am told that an Order has been issued from Dublin Castle cutting down this period to two months. If that is so, and I am told it is so, it is a most unfortunate thing, for, after all, the terms of disbandment contained in the circular are the promises of the Government, and they ought not to be altered without very good reason. In any case I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that question. The next point with which I want to deal is as to who can claim this disturbance allowance. I have read the White Paper 1649, and Section 5 of that says that if a man is compelled to move from his home he can claim certain allowances. Has he to prove that he is compelled to move, and what standard of proof is required? You impose a very hard task on a man by this. Often he cannot prove that there is danger to his life, yet everybody in the district knows there is. I am rather afraid that under that word "compel" you may exact a proof that a man cannot give, and if that is so you will defeat what I believe is the obvious intention, namely, that any man whose life is made impossible for him should leave. Seeing that a great many of these men have to leave their homes and their country, and to settle in what to them is the foreign land, and that they will not do that except for very good reasons, I am not sure you could not go the whole way, and give all members of the force the right to claim this disturbance allowance if they wish. I think you could do that very fairly. After all, a man will not leave his home without some very compelling reason. I do wish to reinforce what has already been said as to giving the man a lump sum down. Do not compel him to prove all his expenses, but give him a sum he can understand, and whatever it is it ought to be a lump sum. The sum in the White Paper 1649, the compensation for disturbance in paragraph 5 of that document, is one, two, or three months. It was suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) that that should be increased to three, five, and six months. I support that most heartily. I would point out that the tribunal which is set up to deal

2279
with exceptional cases now has power to raise that to six months, and so we are not asking a very great concession in requesting that it should be raised to three, five or six months.
There is one very important point on that to which I wish to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary. Any increased grant must be provided for in the Financial Resolution, because when we come to the Bill it will be too late, as we shall then have to abide by the terms of our Financial Resolution. I do hope the Government will include this in the Resolution, and also I do ask them to draw that in such wide terms that we shall not be upset in Committee in doing things we want to do by some technical deficiency in the Financial Resolution. A word about the tribunal for the cases of exceptional hardship. It says here that a tribunal will be appointed to consider and report to the Government upon any individual case in which, in the opinion of the tribunal, exceptional hardship, not otherwise provided for, arises. Can that tribunal deal generally with cases of exceptional hardship, or is its activity confined to strictly exceptional cases? Suppose it turned out that a large number of persons are suffering hardship. Are they precluded by the fact that these are not exceptions? It would seem to me very unfair that this claim should be admitted if there are a few cases, but that it it should not be admitted if the hardship is widespread. I see the Attorney-General shakes his head, which contains a good deal more law than mine. In any case, I have mentioned the point, and I hope the Government will attend to it. There is one very important matter on that arising under paragraph (c) of the powers of the tribunal. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are limited to particular cases in which the tribunal can act, and paragraph (c) applies to such other exceptional provisions as any individual case may appear to require. How far does that go? Are these general words limited by the particular words that precede, or has this body a general power to deal with all cases of hardships? I do not think it has. I think the case has to be exceptional, and the same sort of case as in (a) and (b). I would call the very serious attention of the House to the fact that the order issued by the
2280
heads of the Constabulary and the questions they are sending to the constables and officers, who wish to claim this allowance, contain the following:
"What are the grounds of hardship which in your opinion justify exceptional treatment in your case?"
I think there is a real danger that these words are more limited than they appear. On this I do want to reinforce the appeal made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds on the case of the Divisional Commissioners. I do feel very strongly that these officers are being unfairly treated. They are now being paid a salary of £1,280 a year, and all they get as retiring allowance is £600 a year. They are surely entitled to the usual pension of their status. I cannot conceive any case against that. Could they bring their case before this exceptional hardship tribunal? My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General said we could leave cases of this sort to the tribunal, which was composed of sensible men. Certainly, we can leave them to the tribunal, but will the Government do so? Will they let them decide these cases? I am not at all sure that they will. It is very hard indeed that these men, who have had all the hard, responsible and dangerous work, should be so very badly treated. I hope the Chief Secretary even now will yield and will give them more generous terms. Other officers, whose services are not so outstanding as these have been, are receiving the same terms. The hon. Member for the Ormeau Division of Belfast (Mr. Moles) raised the question of temporary officers. During the War the gratuities that we all received were based upon our temporary rank. If we had only been paid upon our permanent rank we should have got very much smaller gratuities. Why should not the same rule be applied now, and all the Constabulary compensated and pensioned upon their temporary rank?
Finally, I want to say a word in favour of allowing some commutation of pensions to men who wish to settle in this country or to go abroad. I do not want to commute the whole of a man's pension; I would leave him something, so that he would not be penniless in cases where all the commutation has been invested in an improvident venture. The House must not forget that commutation does not cost the Treasury anything. All the Treasury

2281
does is to pay the man the proper value of his pension, and finally it comes back to the taxpayer. Speaking for those who have to pay the Bill, I am quite certain they will pay it gladly. I am certain there is not a single Member of the House, nor anyone in the country, who does not want the most generous treatment to be given to these men, and I hope the Chief Secretary will give way on some of the many points that have been urged upon him.
Sir W. ALLEN: The hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) need not have apologised to the House for his lack of eloquence in pleading the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He has put it in the most pointed and practical way, which I am quite satisfied will bear fruit with those who are responsible for the passage of this Bill. I should not have intervened at all, as every point almost has been put and well presented to the House, but for the fact that we shall have no opportunity of intervening later on, during the passage of the Bill in its various stages through the House, because all the Amendments that we require touch finance. We are, therefore, looking to the Chief Secretary, and, of course, to the British Cabinet, to deal generously when they come to the Committee stage. We are depending upon them to do that, and from what we heard from the Chief Secretary this afternoon, we believe that, at all events, his heart is big enough to do right by this splendid force.
May I point out, first of all, the necessity of doing something immediately in regard to the question of disturbance allowance? Various speakers have pointed out that this disturbance allowance is totally inadequate. That point has been sufficiently impressed upon the Chief Secretary. What I want to emphasise in particular is that whatever is to be done should be done immediately. I doubt very much whether even the Chief Secretary appreciates—I am quite certain the House generally does not—the trouble these men are going through in Ireland. An officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary wrote to me, only yesterday. He said:
"I enclose a number of statements on the terrible feeling which prevails against all ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
He goes on to say:
"It must not be understood by the Government or they would not 'let them down'
2282
as they are doing. These statements were made about the end of March, but I am informed that things are worse since, and that many men who went to their homes after disbandment have had to fly. They have no home,"—
this was only written yesterday—
"they have no work, and many of them have no money. It is a sad ending to our gallant, loyal force, of which we were all so proud, and the worst of it is that this is their reward for loyalty."
So I would emphasise again the necessity of doing something at once for these men who are in this terrible condition.
Another point I would like to emphasise, and which has already been touched upon, is that of the compensation allowance. I have no doubt that the House will generally understand that it is the intention that very generous treatment is meted out to these men by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. According to Rule 1 of the Ninth Schedule of that Act,
"The compensation which may be awarded to an officer or constable shall be an annual allowance."
Rule 2 (a) says:
"There shall be added to his completed years of actual service, if the proportion of salary on which his allowance is calculated is one-fiftieth, 10 years, and if that proportion is one-sixtieth, 12 years."
It would appear at once to everyone that these are most generous terms. I quite agree, if every single individual officer or man participated in that treatment, but I would point out that they do not, and that is one of the blemishes of the Bill. I cannot do better than read the words—it is a concrete case—that have been written to me by an officer of the Constabulary. He says:
"Senior officers and men are entitled to special terms of compensation. They do not get the full benefit of the added years"—
I should like the Chief Secretary to take note of this particularly—
"and some of them derive little or no benefit from these years. Take the case of an officer of 52 years of age, who can serve up to 60 years, that is eight more years. His salary and allowances amount to £845 per annum. He is retired on a pension of £433 6s. 8d. per annum"—
That is to say, he is at the maximum at the moment, and the added 12 years does not add one penny to his compensation. He is entirely excluded from the benefit of the 12 years.
"he loses by retirement £411 13s. 4d. per annum. That is practically half of his

2283
salary. His total loss in eight years is £3,293 6s. 8d. He is able and willing to continue to serve, but he is compulsorily disbanded. His disbandment is no fault of his. He contracted with the Government to serve, and has given them the best years of his life. He has arrived at an age a which he cannot start a new business. He has in many cases a family to support. He is ostracised in his own country for having served the Government. How is he going to live? The Government should specially compensate him, yet he is the worst-treated man in the Royal Irish Constabulary."
That is a case which deserves special consideration from the Chief Secretary. It is quite true, as he says, that it is impossible for these men to live under those conditions. I do not want to delay the passage of this Bill in going to a Second Reading. Two dominant notes that have been sounded all through the Debate. One is a generous expression concerning these men. The highest encomiums have been showered on them, but they cannot live on lip service. The second note is that there is a unanimous concensus of opinion that the most generous treatment ought to be given to these men. Therefore I ask the Chief Secretary to take his courage in both hands. I am quite satisfied that his colleagues in the Cabinet will say, "Treat these men generously." If that is done, I think the whole nation will be satisfied, because they respect these men.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am in full accord with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh (Sir W. Allen) has said. He appealed to me personally, and no one knows what these men deserve better than I do. I regret, more than anyone else, however, that their case, as that of other valued servants of the Empire, must be determined with reference to the condition of the public purse. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General dealt with some of the points raised, and I shall not go over the ground he so well covered. I heard with pleasure the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Londonderry (Sir W. Hacket Pain), a recent recruit to this House, but an old and valued colleague of mine in the Royal Irish Constabulary. I am very happy in having him in the House to take part in the Debate, because he can speak with personal knowledge of the force whose disbandment and whose future we are discussing. A point has been raised by
2284
many hon and gallant Members, including the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) as to the question of treating officers and non-commissioned officers who hold temporary rank on disbandment as holding that substantive rank and of pensioning them on the latter rank. I have received some deputations from some of the class involved in this matter. I am bound to say their case makes a great impression on me. Their case always has made an impression on me. The difficulty has been, in reference to the Divisional Commissioners and the acting county inspectors—both temporary ranks—that one would have to secure legislative authority to make them substantive ranks. That is the real reason why they were not made substantive ranks during the course of their duties.
The question now comes whether it is possible in any way short of legislation, if it is held to be desirable by the Government, to pension these men not on the substantive rank they occupied and adequately filled, or they would not have been there, but rather on the temporary rank which they held. I have been very much impressed, not only by the arguments in the House, by the situation of these gallant men, from the commencement of their careers as temporary officers in the respective grades which they held. All I can say at the moment is that I shall take the matter up with my colleagues in the Government. I decline to promise anything, because a Minister can promise nothing which involves a further charge upon the Treasury. The point can very well be raised in Committee, and I hope then to give an answer. If I had the power, I know what I would do. Although a Minister has no right to promise something which will add an additional charge on the public purse, I shall certainly refer the whole matter to the Government, so that it can be considered not only in respect of these particular cases, which I feel are most urgent, but with reference to all the cases, because the Government must consider the different arms of the service from which officers and men are now being disbanded.
Another point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds was that we should not allow all the disbanded men to come to London. Steps have already been taken to meet that, and the

2285
practice is for the men to go to Chester. Arrangements have been made for accommodating the men in Chester and in a number of towns radiating from Chester, where accommodation at reasonable prices is available, and where there is some chance of the men, if they so wish, securing employment. Most of these men are agriculturists, and can well earn the wages of agriculture or, in the senior ranks, the salaries that go to land agents or other higher officials on estates, if people can find employment for them. Let me give statistics which show that this problem is not one which has outgrown our power of administrative control. The number of applications for commutation for emigration purposes is 625. The number of applications for augmented pensions is 425. I am informed that there is no case where suitable accommodation has not been arranged for at reasonable prices for anybody who seeks it, except in a few cases where the families of the constables removing to Great Britain are so large that there is a temporary difficulty in securing accommodation.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: What does the figure of 400 men who have applied for augmented pensions mean I Does it men those, who apply for special hardship grant?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, it means those who have applied for what is called "loaded or augmented pension." That is, securing for two years a higher pension, and receiving in subsequent years a lower pension, to compensate for the two years of higher pension. On the question of commutation, it is true that up to the present the Government has only granted commutation to persons desirous of emigrating, but in principle the Treasury has full power to grant commutations to the police who have been pensioned, within their own discretion. The rule, I understand, is, that if an ex-Royal Irish Constabulary man can prove that it is to his advantage, for a special purpose, like the buying of a house or the purchase of a business, that his pension should be commuted to some extent, the Treasury would sympathetically consider such a case.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Alter the rules.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: The rules do not govern the Bill. Up to the present
2286
commutation has been restricted to emigration cases, but, further, the Treasury will sympathetically consider those applications for commutation where the applicant can make out a clear case that it is to his advantage to have a portion of his pension commuted.
Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the same principle would be extended to men who retired and got their pension before this Bill?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is another big question. All I can say is that the same rule which applies to one Government service governs other Government services. This is distinctly a Treasury matter, and I cannot speak for the Treasury, except to say that I know they will sympathetically consider these cases. The general rule is not to commute a man's pension for fear that if you commute his pension, and he secures a capital sum and he spends it, he may apply to the Treasury again to be looked after as an ex-public servant. This is a serious problem. The sound principle is to be reluctant to commute except for a definite beneficial purpose. The hon. Member for the Ormeau Division of Belfast (Mr. Moles) complained of the blemishes and blots of the Government in treating this force. I am sorry if there are any blemishes or blots. The Government is not quibbling over a shilling in dealing with the Royal Irish Constabulary. We are most anxious to meet every case that we possibly can. I hope that in Committee hard cases will be raised, and that I shall be able to meet them.
I agree that the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) was very vital to the Financial Resolution, which is so worded that it does not debar even the Government from amending the Bill in Committee. I shall have a word with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Attorney-General on that point; but, here again, no Minister can bind the Treasury. My experience of the Treasury, more particularly of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that personally he is genial and generous, but as Chancellor of the Exchequer he is entrenched with his money bags, surrounded with barbed wire, and almost unapproachable. The idea that the Treasury squanders money recklessly is a delusion, as those who

2287
have ever tried to secure any money from that Department can readily testify. They are right to make it difficult to get public money, but there are certain cases in the Royal Irish Constabulary which call for attention, and I believe it will be in the public interest, as well as common justice, that we should meet these claims.
Major HILLS: Can the tribunal which deals with the cases of special hardship deal with the case of the divisional commissioners?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not going to define the functions of the Special Tribunal. Sir Edward Troop and his colleagues, so far as I am concerned, have the widest powers. There, again, their powers are powers of recommending the Treasury to make certain payments, and I cannot for a moment interfere with their discretion. I hope, and I am sure, that they will exercise that discretion in the widest sense and in the most sympathetic way.
Major HILLS: Does my right hon. Friend himself support the claims of the Divisional Commissioners to more generous treatment?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I believe I can best refer that to the Divisional Commissioners themselves. I have every sympathy with them as with every other member of the force, and I dislike to single out even senior officers. I had the honour to appoint them. They were appointed because of their courage and efficiency, and right well they deserve the support of this House, but I dislike singling out senior officers as being entitled to differential treatment. I would rather that the whole class of men of temporary rank were treated in one way, if possible. The Divisional Commissioners, or some of them, have already appeared before the Special Tribunal, and have put a case before them. I am going before the Special Tribunal to reinforce their own case. The hon. Member for Durham said that he had heard that the option of six months, during which a man could make up his mind whether or not to remove from Ireland, had been suspended, but I am glad to tell him that he has been mis-
2288
informed. That is not so. It is rather a question as to whether the term should not be extended, but that is a point which can be raised in Committee.
It will be some consolation to the members of this force to know that the House does so much appreciate their unflinching devotion to the Crown. Surely the House can appreciate that, as I do. Perhaps I appreciate it more, if possible, than any other Member of this House, for I lived with these men during the worst days of the years that have passed. To me they are the bravest men and the best of comrades. If I had the money, nothing would limit the reward that I would try to make for these distinguished servants of the Crown. I hope that every Member of this House, and every good man in this country, will make this question of the Royal Irish Constabulary a personal matter. Their case cannot be met by money alone. They are strangers in this strange land, for which they fought so long and so well. I hope that every individual will try to secure for these men, not only employment, but a personal welcome that will go a long way to meet their just claim to the justice and sense of fair play, not only of the House, but of the Empire.
Sir W. ALLEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman satisfy the House that every facility is given to these men from the Southern and Western parts of Ireland to come over and appear before this tribunal?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: Every facility is given. I see as many of these men as I can, personally. They know that they can come. In cases where they have to come without getting a railway warrant their fares are returned to them. There is no bar to their coming. They are encouraged to come, and this Special Tribunal is most sympathetic in considering the cases put before them.
Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is his attitude on the question of giving one, two and three months' pay for disturbance allowances, and the suggestion that instead of these allowances three, five and six months' pay should be given?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: My own view is that the cost is so large that I cannot

2289
make any statement on it. I am told that the cost of the scheme would be about £870,000 in addition to what we are already doing. It is a very large sum of money and it does not meet the case. Mere grants of money will not necessarily save a man's life.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates my hon. and learned Friend's proposal. The matter has been discussed, and I understand that those who advised him were of opinion that it would only double the present amount. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the present cost of the present one, two and three months is also £870,000? We understood that it was less than £300,000.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: These various schemes have been worked out and the result submitted to me. The proposed gratuity of three, five and six months' pay would cost approximately £721,500. This would be in addition to the sum of £150,000 the estimated additional cost of removing the conditions at present attached to the grant of disturbance allowance, making a total cost of some £870,000.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Not additional?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, £720,000 additional. But this is only a rough approximation, but I realise that the difficulty is this, that from a remote part of Kerry to some place in Scotland or England the allowance now given to a constable for removal of his furniture and household goods may not meet the actual cost of removal. Fares of course are paid. It is a point on which I cannot give a definite answer this, afternoon. I know that many hon. Members feel very keenly about it. I do not think that the way in which it was put by my hon. and learned Friend that it would necessarily meet the cases which he has in mind. It would be an additional large grant of public money without meeting the particular case which he has in mind. I hope to have this reserved for discussion in Committee and that the House will now allow the Second Reading to be passed.

WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th May], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Question again proposed.
Dr. MURRAY: I have no desire to oppose this Bill. I believe that it should be passed to meet the wishes of the Shetland people. In my constituency there are no people who want the embargo which the Shetland people, owing to the conditions existing there, desire, and as the Bill provides that it is not to be put into force except when the people want it I have no objection to offer.
Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I am not opposed to this Bill, but I should have been opposed to it if it had been, as some people wished it to be, a Bill imposing an absolute prohibition on whaling in these waters. It is because it is permissive and gives discretion to the Secretary of Scotland that I support it. Though I think that there is some evidence to show that whaling off the West Coast of Shetland has something to do with the disappearance of the herring in these waters, yet I do not think that it is proved fully, because we can give examples of many other fishing stations in the North of Scotland where there has been at one time a- large herring fishery which has suddenly disappeared without any good apparent reason. That being so, I think that it would be a mistake to suppose that because herring have disappeared in these water therefore it must be the result of the whaling that has been going on for the last 20 years or so. That is why I think that discretion should be given to the Secretary for Scotland, so that he can watch what will happen within the next few years and prohibit whaling only if he thinks that the case against it is fully proved. There is another reason. An attempt was made by bringing the two parties together to make an arrangement whereby both herring fishing and whaling could be carried on in these waters. It is possible that if whaling were confined to a certain time of the year, when herring fishing was not being followed, the herring fishing could be carried on at other periods of the year, and if the Secretary for Scotland has this discretion he may

2291
be armed with some negotiating power which might enable him to get such an arrangement adopted.
It is advisable that some attempt should be made even now to see whether both these industries cannot be retained for Shetland. There is some danger that even if you do prevent whaling stations in Shetland, whaling will still go on in the same waters, and that the result of your prohibition will simply be that the station on land may be removed to some other place, say the Faroe Islands, and that the whaling may go on in the same waters as at present. If that were so the Bill would not achieve its object. That is why I think that it would be a mistake if the Secretary for Scotland bowed to pressure put on him to ask the House to prohibit whaling altogether. I hope that this question will be watched carefully by the Fishery Board, and an attempt made to get a little more information than we have at present about the habits of the herring. Ignorance of the habits of the herring is the cause of all the trouble. I know from my own experience in the North of Scotland that many old ideas as to the habits of the herring have now been rejected. Not very long ago it was believed that herrings appeared in the late spring or early summer in the Outer Hebrides and that they had a procession around these islands finishing up about Lowestoft or Yarmouth in the late autumn or winter. That was knocked on the head by the fact that suddenly in winter-time herrings were found up in the Minch, and now I believe that the winter fishing of herring at Stornaway is the most important of the year. Other theories have come and gone, and the only thing of which we can be certain now is our gross ignorance of the habits of the herring. I hope, therefore, that some better attempt will be made to get at the facts in reference to this difficult question.
Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I would ask the Lord Advocate to give us some information on the question of whaling and the people whose livelihood may be taken away by its prohibition. I understand that there is one big firm of whalers who have been established in Shetland for over 40 years. It is proposed now, because of some idea that their activities are detrimental to herring fishing, to take away without any com-
2292
pensation licences which have been granted periodically to them. That would be a very hard proceeding. If you deprive this firm of its means of livelihood you should pay fair compensation not only to the firm, but also to the people whom they employ. It is conceivable that you may throw out of employment some 2,000 people in these islands who are engaged either directly or indirectly in this whaling, and these people may be displaced without any chance of getting compensation. That is a proceeding which is foreign to this House. When this House interferes with rights that have existed for many years it has always recognised the principle of compensation for disturbance. I have not heard any reason advanced now why this practice should be abandoned and I will ask the Lord Advocate to tell us why the Government think it necessary to suspend these licences and take away without any compensation the means of livelihood of this firm.
8.0 P.M.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. Murray): I have no wish to add anything to what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to the provisions of this Bill, but I would like to say one word in reply to what has been said. I am sure that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Munro) will take into consideration the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood). On the question of compensation, some criticism has been directed on the ground that it is proposed in the Bill to give power to suspend or cancel licences without compensation in limited cases. My hon. Friend must be under some misapprehension, as my information is that the industry in the North of Scotland is of comparatively recent growth, and indeed, that it was instituted only in 1903. The reason why it is not proposed to offer compensation is as follows: while the principle is generally accepted that interference in the public interest with private property—where a license is renewable every year, it is not private property—calls for compensation, quite different considerations apply if the conditions are such as are contemplated in the Bill, because, as my hon. Friend knows, it is a fundamental of law that private right much yield to the public interest, and that if the carrying on of a man's business is prejudicial to the

2293
interests of his neighbours, his right must yield. In respect of that, the provisions of the Bill are explicitly limited to the case in which the Secretary for Scotland is satisfied, upon inquiry, that there is detriment to the general herring industry. It is for that reason alone, I take it, that the provision is proposed that in such cases the general principle of law must prevail and private interests must yield.

AIR MINISTRY (KENLEY COMMON ACQUISITION) [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to authorise 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 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."
The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The House was good enough yesterday to give me a Second Reading of the Bill giving Parliamentary sanction to an agreement between the Air Ministry and the Corporation of the City of London. This is the Financial Resolution by which we ask the permission of the House to charge the Air Estimates with a sum of £2,500, £2,000 being the cost of adapting new lands which are acquired for recreational purposes to take the place of the common which the corporation have transferred to us under this exchange. The additional £500 is made up as follows: £150 for compensation to certain owners for rights over the old common; £250, fees of Parliamentary agents: and £100 in respect of corporation costs. The House approved yesterday of the arrangement and without this small additional sum it would be impossible to complete the scheme.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Mr. SPEAKER: There being a Motion appointed for 8.15, I shall now leave the Chair until that time.
[Sitting suspended till a quarter past Eight of the Clock.]

IRELAND (KIDNAPPED BRITISH OFFICERS).
Mr. GWYNNE: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
It is with some reluctance and with a feeling of responsibility that I move the Adjournment of the House to-night, in order to call attention to the failure of the Government to take adequate steps to secure, the, release of three officers of the British Army who have been kidnapped in Ireland. The facts, as far as I know them, are these: On Thursday, 27th April last, three officers, whose names and whose regiments for obvious reasons I shall not mention, were, motoring in County Cork. They got as far as Macroom, when they were surrounded by armed rebels and kidnapped, and from that day to this, as far as I know, nothing has been heard of them. It is not in order to make political capital or to try to show that the peace of Ireland has broken down, that I raise this question. It is too serious to do so when men's lives are in danger, as these men's lives are in danger at this moment, but I ask the House to realise what the feelings of the relations and parents of these officers must be. I saw a communication to-day from the mother of one of these officers—a piteous appeal. She does not know whether they are alive or dead, and, indeed, had they been in some savage part of Africa their fate could not be surrounded with greater mystery, nor could the uncertainty regarding them be more horrible than it is. It is because I feel the time has arrived when this House should realise its responsibility and should ask the Government to explain what they are doing to protect our troops and the loyalists in Ireland that I feel bound to raise and to press this question to-night.
What is the policy of the Government? They tell the House that an arrangement

2295
was made that the troops should be evacuated from Ireland, but at the present time we do not seem to be pursuing a policy either of evacuation or occupation. If we evacuated, in the ordinary sense of the word, it would surely be, from the military point of view, a criminal act to leave outposts, or small numbers of men, unprotected in various areas under the conditions at present prevailing in Ireland. After all, the soldiers are sent there, and have got to stay there, and I always understood it to be one of the first duties of a Government to see that the men who are serving them in this way do not risk their lives unnecessarily, and are not sacrificed without any precautions being taken. I leave the military point of view to be dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend who will second this Motion, only making this remark. I do not know whether the soldiers still remaining in Ireland are allowed to go about armed, or whether they have to take precautions against attacks by armed rebels, but I ask the Leader of the House, when he comes to reply, to tell us, from the military point of view, whether the men still remaining in Ireland consider that peace or war exists there. If there be war, the Government are directly responsible for allowing these men to be taken in this way. If there is supposed to be peace, why are we not having actual peace?
Let me point out another factor which is very material at the present time. In order to bring about this so-called peace, all Sinn Fein prisoners were released, whether they were in this country or in Ireland, and, as far as I know, were released unconditionally. There were shut up here something like 1,000 men who were so dangerous that they were not allowed to go about Ireland during the time when we had all our troops there, when we had police there, and when we had some opportunity of protecting our soldiers. These men, after their release, immediately swarmed over Ireland, burning, pillaging and murdering, and naturally, after having previously been captured and put in prison, one of their first objects is to try to go for those men who brought about their captivity. They are free to go about Ireland, and to wreak their vengeance on the very men who got them shut up, and who are sill in Ireland living practically unprotected. That
2296
surely is a very risky proceeding. We have been told many times about regrettable incidents taking place in Ireland. How many hundreds of these regrettable incidents have there been since the truce? Surely it is not unfair to say that the Government were somewhat premature in their rejoicing over the peace which they say they brought about in Ireland.
No doubt the Government will tell us that the Provisional Government is the body responsible for looking after law and order in Ireland, and that it is to the Provisional Government only they can look for getting the release of these officers. Does the Government really think that the Provisional Government have the power at the present time to release these officers I Why, it cannot function in the capital of Ireland. It has not even occupation of the Law Courts there, and cannot look after civilians there. If it cannot function in its own capital, can anyone suggest that the Provisional Government is in a position to protect British citizens in the provinces? We have had clear proof, time after time, that they are unable to do so. The Irish Republican Army has repudiated the Prosional Government, and we have had to sit still and see men who were coming to this country dragged from the boat and taken back by the orders of some rebel body in Ireland. I ask the Leader of the House to tell us how long we are to go on suffering this state of things. How many lives will it be necessary to see sacrificed before some definite step is taken and some firm policy adopted? Is there a single instance to which the Government can point where the Provisional Government have carried out the death sentence on men who have committed murder and had it proved against them? We are told as a fact that a certain number of men have been tried and that sentences have been passed, but we know from evidence we have received that the very next day those men are at large. It is simply a make-belief in order to try and satisfy us over here.
The House should realise its responsibilities and should press the Government to say if there is going to be any limit to this state of affairs. I suppose the election may come in due course, but we do not know when. Are we to go on waiting, are our men to be murdered,

2297
killed, robbed, and butchered in a more savage way than goes on even in Russia, and are we still merely to be told to be satisfied by remembering that the Prime Minister told us as recently as 15th December that Ireland, after this Treaty, was going to be
"a willing Ireland, radiant because the long quarrel has been settled,"
because, as he said,
"by this agreement we win a deep, abiding, passionate loyalty,"
and because, in future, when we are in trouble,
"our victory will be her joy"?
There surely is a great responsibility on the Government at the present time, and I would appeal especially to-night to those Members in this House who, as I think wrongly, as they think rightly, felt that a trial should be given to this settlement, that something must be done. I would ask them to put themselves in the position of the relations and the parents of these unfortunate officers. Surely the experiment has been tried, surely so far it has failed, and I put it to the House that unless the Government can prove that there is some hope of this state of affairs ceasing, that there is some hope of peace in the very near future, the time has come to reconsider the position and to tell the Provisional Government that, if they cannot function now, other steps must be taken to save this country from the disgrace for which at the present time we are responsible in this House.
If this state of affairs were going on in any other country in the world, we should be looking upon it with amazement. Hon. Members from the benches above the Gangway would be screaming out. I do not forget that not many months ago, when a creamery was burnt down, hon. Members from those benches could not rest day or night about it, but not a word is raised when loyalists, men who have, served throughout the War, men who are still serving their country, are butchered and massacred. Not one word of protest is heard. Those hon. Members protested when a creamery was burnt down. They rose in a body, but they say nothing at all now. [An Hon. MRMBEK: "We voted for your Adjournment Motion to-night."] I do not want to raise feeling over this. It is much too serious, but I ask the House, Is there an hon. Member now who would
2298
go over to Ireland or allow his family to go over under existing conditions, and, if not, what right have they to sit still here and allow these loyalists to be treated in the way in which they are being treated? I trust we shall have some satisfactory explanation. Unless we do, I shall feel bound to divide the House on this question as a protest against the continued delay on the part of the Government in securing that everything is being done that is possible for the protection of our troops in Ireland.
Field-Marshal Sir HENRY WILSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I rise to ask if the Government would in some manner define a situation which is at least difficult to understand, and I would like to ask two or three questions of the Government. What are our troops doing in Ireland? They certainly are not there to maintain law and order. Our troops, so far as my knowledge goes—and it is public knowledge—have been withdrawn from all the outlying stations, and are now grouped in Cork and Dublin, and there may still be a few in the Curragh. It is obvious that the troops grouped in Cork and Dublin are not maintained in the 26 counties to maintain law and order. Then what are our troops in the 26 counties for? Are they there at the request of Mr. Collins? If so, will the Government say so? Will Mr. Collins say so? If they are not, why are they there? We are told that the 26 counties are governed at the present moment by a Provisional Government. If the troops in the 26 counties are not there at the request of Mr. Collins, why are they there I Are they there because there is any difficulty in removing them? I have some experience in the movement of troops, and there is no difficulty whatever in removing the few troops that are still in the 26 counties. Are the troops there at the request of the War Office? I am not in a position to say whether they are or whether they are not, but I imagine that the War Office would be only too glad to get their troops back into England, where they could be properly trained and properly housed, and join their families. If, then, they are not there to maintain law and order, if they are not there at the request of the Provisional Government, if they are not there because of the difficulties of removing them, if they are not there at

2299
the request of the War Office, then why are they there?
May I venture to make a guess? It is a guess, because I do not know, but no doubt some Member of the Cabinet could give us some reason why they are there. May I venture to make a guess? It is this. His Majesty's Government have some doubts as to whether or not Mr. Michael Collins will be able to make a Provisional Government, and, in the event of his not being able to do so, they think it might be a precaution to hold the towns of Dublin and Cork and the ports of Dublin and Queenstown. Surely the House of Commons has the right to know why the troops are in the 26 counties. The Government say they have made representations to the Provisional Government, and they are quite sure that the Provisional Government are doing all that is possible for the release of these three officers. But are the lives of our soldiers in the care of the Provisional Government of Ireland? Have the Government at Westminster handed over the troops now quartered in Ireland to the orders of the Provisional Government, and if they have not—and they have not—then are not the lives of our soldiers in Ireland the responsibility of the Government at Westminster? When the responsibility for the lives of these officers and men is directly on the shoulders of the Government at Westminster, what is the object, what is the use of saying that representations have been made to a Government who are not responsible for the lives of men, the responsibility for whose lives rests on the Government in this House?
Have the Government not yet learnt their lesson about Ireland? Can they not yet see that a Provisional Government, which is not able to eject a small handful of men from the Four Courts in Dublin and Kilmainham Gaol, is totally unable to govern 3,500,000 souls in the 26 counties? Have the Government not yet learnt their lesson about Ireland? How many more murders must be committed in Ireland before the Government realise the true situation of that country? We are dealing to-night with the question of officers and men. May I suggest that some Cabinet Minister should go over to Ireland, and, if necessary, beseech the Provisional Government to grant the lives of our soldiers in that
2300
country? [An HON. MEMBER: "Send all the Ministers."] If, as may be the case— and God forbid!—these three officers have already been murdered, on what body of men lies the responsibility for their lives? As I see it, the whole world is looking on at the present moment at a manifestation of incompetence, and, if I may be allowed in this House to say so, of cowardice, which will surely bear fruit in all the other parts of our great Empire. Therefore, I would ask the Government, as they are responsible for the lives of these poor men who are ordered to remain in Ireland, not at the request of Mr. Collins, not for purposes of law and order, not at the beseechings of the War Office—I would ask the Government who are responsible for their lives to take some action which will insure their lives.
Captain Viscount CURZON: I speak to-night as an ex-service man in this House, and I do not in the least understand, after the two able speeches to which we have listened, what reply the Government can possibly made. There is one thing I would ask them to do, and that is, as was suggested by the hon. and gallant Field-Marshal, do, for Heaven's sake, one of you—I do not care which—go over to Ireland in person, and get in touch. You will not do anything by making representations to the Provisional Government by means of the cable. Let them prove that the Government have, as we know they have, the courage of their convictions. Let them be men, and find out over there for themselves what is happening. Nothing is more disgraceful than to see a Government here in Westminster make representations to a Provisional Government, and dare not go over there for themselves and see what is happening. You may say it is unnecessary, because you can get members of the Provisional Government to come over here. Can you? Have you any assurance from them that they have any power to carry out your representations? They have not. Then, why make representations to them? We were told the other day in this House that the Irish Republican Army at Macroom, where these three officers and one driver were captured, does not acknowledge the Provisional Government. Then why make representations to them? What is the good of it?
The only thing to do is to make up your minds, Are you going to enforce law

2301
and order, or are you going to give the country to anarchy? But for goodness sake tell the country where we stand. This motor-driver may be one of my constituents. I find the greatest possible difficulty in putting questions in this House about this case. I tried to put a question about the troops in Ireland today, and I was told I could not put it as a Private Notice question. It must go on the Paper, and I am not sure it will pass the Table. I beg the Government to let the country know where they stand, because every Englishmen worthy of the name is ashamed of the state of affairs going on in Ireland. We hope for the best. We cannot go back on what has been done so far, but what we can do is to provide for the future, and I beg the Government to do what they can, and what lies in their power, to safeguard the lives of our soldiers, and, indeed, of some of our sailors, too, in Ireland.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I only rise to ask the Leader of the House to say something in his reply as to the reasons why we agreed to withdraw all our troops from Ireland before the Provisional Government had really established themselves in force. If we were going to make an agreement with rebels in Ireland, which I voted against, and would vote against again if I had the opportunity, it was not fair to hand over the government of a country like Ireland, with three and a half million people, to expect a Government to be formed and begun, and, at the same time, take away all the men by which law and order were preserved. Surely it was necessary to have some intervening time, to say that there should be at least a year or some time like it, during which the Provisional Government should have time to raise a police force to take the place of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which we have been engaged in disbanding this afternoon, and to raise an armed force to back up the police, to have garrisons at certain places, and so on. It was not fair to the Provisional Government. What we should like to know from the Leader of the House, if he can tell us, is why the Government of this country agreed to allow the Provisional Government to take over Ireland on the condition that we were to withdraw our troops at once. They must have known, even if Mr.
2302
Collins and his collaborators did not know, having been engaged in governing the oldest country in the British Empire, that it would be utterly impossible for any Government to carry on without a proper police force, and troops, and garrisons to support that police force. That being so, why did they agree to withdraw troops in Ireland before the Provisional Government had made the necessary rearrangements?
As it is, what we now see is that the Provisional Government—and we give them credit for what they have said they are wishful to do in regard to the matter—are trying to enforce law and order, to do their best in this regard, to arrest the men who have committed murders since the truce, to protect the loyalists, but to what effect? Mr. Collins has issued a magniloquent manifesto, granting an amnesty to those who fought against the so-called Irish Republic, and so on. I give the Provisional Government credit for really meaning what they say, but it is a fact that they have been unable to do any of these things. Even in Dublin itself, as has been pointed out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson), they cannot turn out the men who have seized some of the most important buildings in the City. In other parts of the country they have got absolutely no power whatever. The insurgent Irish Republican Army are turning out disbanded constabulary who have gone back to live peaceably at their own homes; loyalists are being turned out by these insurgents. I read out cases this afternoon in which disbanded Irish constables were ordered out of Ireland by men who had taken over the local barracks on behalf of the Provisional Government. While apparently acting on behalf of the Provisional Government they are driving out men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have been disbanded, and who have been promised protection by the Provisional Government itself. The whole of the chaos which exists in Ireland to-day is due, not only to some other obvious causes, but to the insurgency that existed before the truce, but is due at this moment principally to the action of the Government signing an agreement by which to withdraw the forces which are the only forces, whatever Government is in power, by which law and order can be maintained in any country at any time. I trust the right hon. Gen-

2303
tleman in his reply will say a few words to explain why it is that this state of affairs should have arisen.
Mr. LANE-FOX: I hope very much that the Government will be able to clear up some of the doubts which are strongly felt by some of its best supporters.
Mr. GRITTEN: They ought to be ashamed to be its supporters in this matter.
Mr. LANE-FOX: Recent events have constituted a very serious strain upon loyalty. What has caused this? Three officers have been kidnapped. Probably in any other country in the world if that had happened there would have been an ultimatum to the Government of that country, and it might have been followed by actual war at once, unless some reparation or restitution was made. I admit that the circumstances in relation to Ireland make the thing exceedingly difficult, but this House does require an assurance—and I earnestly hope the Government will be in a position to give it—that they have taken really serious action so that it may be represented to the world, and not only to the Irish people, that British officers cannot be kidnapped in this way; that for the strength and dignity of this country—to put it merely on that ground—this cannot be allowed to go on. It is idle to pretend that there is no responsibility on the Government in relation to the troops. I hope that at a very early moment some speaker on behalf of the Government will give the assurance the House so earnestly wishes. This is a matter on which some of us who support the Government most loyally cannot continue to give that support unless it can be shown by proof that the difficulties are insuperable and that the Government have made every possible effort to get over them. I am quite certain that the loyal supporters of the Government would not ask them to do anything impossible. All they ask is that proof shall be given to the House that sincerely, honestly, and with courage they are prepared to face the responsibility thrown upon them. If the Government can give that assurance, they can rely upon the loyalty of their supporters.
Mr. INSKIP: The House, I think, has been anxious to hear what the right hon.
2304
Gentleman the Leader of the House, or the Government speaker, has to say on this question. Everybody has witnessed the reluctance of hon. Members to intervene in this Debate in the absence of that full information which the House has a right to expect from the Government as to the steps which are being taken. My hon. Friend has voiced the opinion of a great many when he says that, in the absence of some sort of assurance, we shall find ourselves in a difficulty in supporting the Government. For myself, I have not intervened at an earlier stage because I felt sure that at the earliest moment the Government would give us that information which would allay our doubts and correct our lack of knowledge so that we might be comforted in the support which we are anxious to give to the Government. Many of us on these and on the opposite benches supported the Government in enacting the Bill to approve of the Irish Treaty. We realise that the Provisional Government and our own Government are in difficulties during the transitional period in Ireland, and we realise that questions must arise which would perplex anybody, but the great principle which emerges on all these occasions, surely, is, that whatever difficulties present themselves the security of a British subject must be preserved. I recall words, which many hon. Members will recollect, which were used in this House on a famous occasion by Lord Palmerston, who said:
"A British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against any injustice and wrong."
It would be intolerable if the safety of the British subject were to be less respected in a part of the King's dominions than in a foreign country. It may be asked—What right have the Government to interfere at the present time? It may be said that the constitutional difficulties are insuperable, and having transferred their powers to the Provisional Government of the Free State it is impossible for our Ministers to intervene. I do not take that view. My information is necessarily imperfect, but taking our information as it is, some of us hold the opinion that the Government might have done more. We may not know all that has been done, but let us know at the earliest moment what has been done, and what representations have been addressed

2305
to the Provisional Government. Let us know the full force which is behind the words that have been used in order that the Provisional Government may understand that these British subjects, these British officers, are under the protection of our Government wherever they may go, or wherever they may be.
The matter is not without precedent. There are hon. Members in this House who will remember a Debate which I remember as a member of the public and not as a Member of this House early in 1906, shortly after the Liberal Government came into power, in connection with a very grave interference with the administration of the Government of Natal. The interference which then took place, which was severely criticised in some parts of the House because Lord Elgin as Secretary of State for the Colonies had intervened to prevent the execution of a number of natives who had murdered British police officers. The Government of Natal had gone so far as to permit the execution of these natives, but instead of leaving it to the internal administration of the Government of Natal, our Government addressed a direction to the Governor that the execution of those natives should be suspended until our Government, and not the Natal Government, was satisfied that the proper forms of law had been observed.
9.0 P.M.
These, are the words which the present Secretary of State for the Colonies used in relation to what he conceived to be the duty of this House to protect even South African natives if we were not sure that they were being accorded the justice which is the right of a British citizen. On the 2nd of April, 1906, the right hon. Gentleman, then Under-Secretary for the Colonies, said:
"I am not going to attempt to plunge into the mazes of a constitutional argument as to the relation of the mother country with the Colonies … but I cannot accept on behalf of the Government for one moment the doctrine that we have absolutely no responsibility."
But the right hon. Gentleman used even more emphatic words as to our duty with regard to these 12 natives. He said:
"We should not be deterred from possessing ourselves beforehand of all that information on these grave matters which we are bound to possess if we are to do our duty by the native races,—"
2306
It is that grave duty which I now call upon the Government to fulfil. Continuing, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"If we are to do our duty by the native races, who are after all British subjects, who after all look to the Throne for protection, and to whose well being while they are under the national flag, no one who regards the honour and, indeed, the safety of his country can be indifferent."
Those were striking words to be used by a Minister of the Crown with regard to native subjects in so far off a country as South Africa. If we apply those words to these officers and British subjects who, across a narrow channel, have been taken probably to their death, we can appreciate the gravity of the situation, and we can use the words which the right- hon. Gentleman used, and say not only the honour of the country, but the safety of the country begins to be in danger. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will say that the Government have no responsibility. He may say that they have a responsibility, but that they will do nothing more than address a communication to the Provisional Government. At any rate let us know what has been said and what replies have been received. Let us know what the Provisional Government have to say as to the extent of their powers to protect these officers. If the Government say they have no responsibility, or having responsibility they can do nothing effective, that will indeed be a sorrowful confession, and if that is the case, then I venture to say that the proud tradition of the security of the British subject will be an unhappy memory and the greatest possession which this House has ever given up.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I hope that no hon. Member will think that I was slow to respond because I did not rise to speak the moment my hon. Friend (Mr. Gwynne) had moved and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Henry Wilson) had seconded the Motion for the Adjournment. I had undertaken to answer on behalf of the Government, and I hope I was not unreasonable in thinking that it was only fair that I should hoar the Debate develop, in order to know the character of the criticisms which I had to meet. Therefore I did not want to exhaust my right to speak at the very beginning of the Debate, when other aspects might be developed and other criticisms brought forward in the time that remained. I should like to have

2307
waited a little longer, in order to be more fully possessed of the views and anxieties of all sections of the House, but after listening to the speeches which have been made I did not like to delay any longer.
Let me say at once that I have no sort of criticism to offer in regard to the con-duet of my hon. Friend in bringing a matter of this kind before the House, or of requiring from the Government an explanation of its attitude. Neither can I make any criticism of the language in which he introduced and supported his Motion. He spoke with a moderation, with an absence of passion, which is not incompatible with a profound emotion, and which I hope others who take part in this Debate will be able to equal in any observations that they make. What has taken place in Ireland, illustrated by the kidnapping of these three officers and the soldier who was driving them, and by other events more certainly tragic in their conclusion, stirs the hearts of us all, makes us profoundly anxious and uncomfortable, and, I think, might easily lead us, in the depth of the feelings which such savage and lawless deeds arouse, to commit blunders of statecraft and policy that might prejudice all issues which lie between Ireland and this country and the future of both our communities. I wish that I could give to the House information about these officers and the soldier who accompanied them. We have done our best to get news of their whereabouts, and we have failed. Immediately on news reaching us, a communication was sent to the Provisional Government, the gravity of the incident was pointed out to them, and steps were taken to impress upon them their duty to do everything in their power to secure the immediate release of these officers, and, on the part of our representatives, to gain information about them.
Since my hon. Friend gave notice of his Motion to-day, I have been trying to gather the latest information. My only regret, on the occasion of this Debate, is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is not present. I regret it, not merely on personal grounds, either as regards himself or me, but because, as he has been the Minister immediately concerned in all our relations with the Provisional Government, he would have been in a better position
2308
to deal with this incident in its relation to the whole than I, who have not had the daily and constant touch with the subject which he has had, and whose information, therefore, in regard to a good many details, has to be acquired rather for the purposes of the Debate, and is not the result of daily experience and knowledge. The House will excuse me if I am not, therefore, quite as perfect in the story that I tell of events, or in my capacity to give information, as my right hon. Friend would have been. As I have said, since I had notice of the Debate I have been trying to get the latest information. I have a message from Ireland that General Macready and Colonel Brind went yesterday and interviewed the British officer who is conducting the inquiry, in connection with the disappearance of the three officers, with the Sinn Feiners. They also saw the Sinn Fein representatives—the representatives both of those who are loyal in their adherence to the Provisional Government and those who have disavowed its authority and are in open resistance to it. Both assured these officers that they had no further news of the officers concerned, and that they knew nothing of their fate. Both sides gave to General Macready and the officer who accompanied him the assurance that every possible step was being taken to unravel the mystery. General Macready, I am informed, is inclined to think that genuine efforts are being made by both sides—that is to say, both Irish parties, those who support the Provisional Government and those who are opposed to it—to ascertain what really happened to the officers.
Hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have asked me various questions, directed, sometimes, from entirely opposite standpoints. One hon. Member asked me why any troops are withdrawn from Ireland. Another hon. Member asked me why any troops are kept in Ireland. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion asked why small bodies of troops were kept in exposed positions. My hon. and gallant Friend, who seconded, stated, quite correctly, that small bodies of troops in exposed positions had all been withdrawn, and that the troops had been concentrated, I think, in Dublin or in Cork, though, like him, I am uncertain whether there may not still be some more troops at the Curragh. Those troops are in process of ordinary evacuation from Ire-

2309
land, but, in the present unsettled conditions, does my hon. Friend or does my hon. and gallant Friend really think that it would be desirable that we should take special steps to hasten the departure of these bodies of troops that still remain in Dublin or in Cork? I must say, for my part, that I think it would be desirable that, while the position is still as it is, while there is so much to give rise to anxiety and care, those positions should not be wholly left, and that we should still have some British troops in that part of Ireland, or that, at any rate, we should not carry out the evacuation faster than we had originally intended. The troops, however, are concentrated in these two, or, at most, three areas. They are not in scattered bodies. Where they were exposed, they were ordered by General Macready, a little before Easter, to observe all military precautions. The precautions observed before the signature of the Treaty were to be resumed at once. I do not think my hon. Friend supposed that these officers, when kidnapped, were actually on military duty. I understand that they left Cork to visit friends in the Macroom area, that they visited one friend, that they then proceeded to Macroom, and that in all probability, I think almost as a certainty, it was in Macroom that they were captured.
Sir W. BARTON: Were they wearing the King's uniform?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. They were not on duty at the time, but were intending to pay a private visit to certain friends of theirs when they were captured.
Mr. GWYNNE: Was the driver in uniform?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume he was. My answer to my hon. Friend, therefore, is that in the first place we have taken the precaution of concentrating the troops and not leaving them in scattered and isolated bodies, and in the second place, shortly before Easter the Commander-in-Chief had issued instructions that they were to observe all military precautions. Of course, you cannot confine officers and men to barracks for an unlimited time, but, short of making life intolerable, they were ordered to observe all military precautions for their security, the situation being considered dangerous. Then my hon. Friend suggests that these outrages are committed by the men who
2310
were held here and released, in some cases with no charges preferred against them. I think he is mistaken in supposing that these outrages are in the main committed by the men who were most prominent in the fighting against us, and he is certainly mistaken if he assumes that all those who fought against us and suffered at our hands in fighting against us are now our bitter enemies or wish to pursue a vendetta. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not say so."] My hon. Friend will himself correct me if I misrepresent him, which he knows I am not anxious to do. I am not anxious in a matter of this kind to make debating points against him or anyone. I am anxious to tell the House what is the position as far as I know it and to satisfy their desire for information. It would be a mistake if he attributes these outrages in particular to the men who were released, or even supposes that those who were most prominent in fighting against us when we were fighting are necessarily the men who are guilty of the hideous outrages which have disgraced Ireland since the signature of the Treaty.
Mr. GWYNNE: I merely pointed out that one of the dangers which our troops are in was the release of thousands of men whom we had confined in gaol here, and that naturally they might be expected to seek revenge on our officers.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is not so, and I think some of those men who were released have been amongst the stoutest defenders of the Treaty or agreement which was signed. I have just received the information that the military driver of the car was not in uniform any more than the officers whom he was driving. Thai; is the best information the War Office has got. My hon. Friend asked whether we do not think this experiment has been tried long enough, and whether we ought not to tell the Provisional Government at once that we are now going to take other steps. I think that is the real issue before the House to-night, and a graver issue we could not have to consider and decide. Our hearts are all on one side, but we must consult our heads as well as our hearts before we take an irrevocable decision on a question of vital importance, on a question which involves on the one side patience under great provocation in pursuing through a period of extra-

2311
ordinary, but as we hope, temporary, difficulty, the peace effort which we initiated last year, and which this House approved last year and reapproved and affirmed this year, or whether we are now, under the impression of horror derived from this or that murder, this or that kidnapping, to throw the experiment up here and now, to declare the Treaty at an end, to step in, to reassume the duty of preserving law and order and the whole responsibility of Government in the 26 counties of Ireland.
That is really the issue that is before the House to-night. I feel deeply and profoundly about these outrages. I am not less moved, because I have other responsibilities, by thoughts of the sufferings of their relatives. I am not less moved by the thought of what we owe to these men and of our impotence to pay our debt to them. I could make with a full heart the speeches which I have heard from hon. Members, but I beg the House to think of the larger issue and even, amidst the pain and anguish that exists, to keep its eyes fixed on the great result which may yet be obtained, which I think will be obtained, which the great majority of the House has twice on set occasions expressed its desire to obtain, and which, if obtained, will mean an accession of unity to the Empire, of strength and influence to the British name, and the extension of peace not in Ireland alone, but throughout all the countries where the English language is spoken such as no other single act of statesmanship could give. All that is in the balance. I understand hon. Members who voted against it, I understand hon. Members who from the first thought this policy wrong, who believed that it would fail, that, if it succeeded, success would be almost more dangerous than failure, I understand hon. Members who take that view seizing upon any incident and using it to bring the experiment to an end. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Withdraw!" Other HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL rose—
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will my hon. Friends allow me? I think they see that I am not attempting to say anything—
Viscount CURZON: No one of us said that!
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —which is offensive. Let me put my thought in different words, words which, I hope, will give no offence. The subject is far too big to be prejudiced by the clumsiness of a speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not the Leader of the House!"]—the subject is far too big to be prejudiced by the clumsiness of any speaker, in a speech which hon. Members will recognise is necessarily unprepared and impromptu. Hon. Members will believe me when I say that I am seeking to put my case without offence to anyone. Let me try to put my thought in this way. I understand men who thought this wrong, who from the first have thought and urged that, even if temporarily it succeeded, success would lead to ultimate and worse failure, and in that sense would be even more disastrous than failure; I can understand those people being convinced—they needed no conviction—but being reinforced in their conviction, that it is a mistake we ought never to have committed, and that having committed it we ought to reverse it at the first moment at which we can do so. I can understand that, but what I cannot understand, and what I hope is not the case, is that the great majority of the House who wanted the experiment and approved its initiation, who after some months' interval passed the Act establishing the Provisional Government, should at once, because neither they nor we can restore peace or order in this unhappy country, immediately abandon the hope, go back on their own policy and renounce it, with all the prospect in the light of which they and we went into the Lobby together in support of this Measure. By the Act of this House and of Parliament we have transferred the primary responsibility for law and order, the protection of life, and the protection of property in Southern Ireland, to the Provisional Government just as much as we have transferred the same responsibility in the six counties to the Government of Northern Ireland. Theirs is that duty, and they acknowledge it, but it would be idle to pretend, for them or for me to pretend, that throughout all the 26 counties at this moment they have the power to discharge all the elementary duties of all civilised Governments. But the Provisional Government has shown in all its communications an earnest desire to give

2313
this protection, a profound regret for these outrages which have been committed, and a willingness to do all that lies within its power in order to right the wrongs and bring the criminals to justice.
Mr. GWYNNE: With what result?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not without success in some cases. There are a good many cases. There are cases where property wrongfully seized has been returned in whole or in part. There are some eases, at any rate, where men threatened and ordered to leave the country, as described by my hon. Friend and as is within the knowledge of us all, have been successfully protected by the Provisional Government against those threats; and though this Motion arises especially on these three kidnapped officers, I know the minds of Members, and sometimes in their speeches they go back to other incidents of recent occurrence which are part of the same reign of disorder and of tyranny, and which influence their judgment. Take the murders of those Protestants in the Dunmanway district the other day. I think I have here some illustrations of the way in which these outrages were treated by the Provisional Government. The following statement was printed in the "Freeman" of the 29th April:
"In connection with the murders in Dunmanway, Ballineen, and Clonakilty the Cabinet of Dail Eireamn issued the following last evening: 'The Dail Cabinet desires to express its abhorrence of the murders committed in South Cork. Every effort is being made to bring the culprits-to justice, and all the resources of the Dail and of the Provisional Government will be used to that end. It is appreciated that certain elements in the community'"—
and I beg the House to mark this, which is profoundly true and the essence of the present situation—
"'It is appreciated that certain elements in the community are taking advantage of the present transitional period in Ireland to wreak private vengeance in the hope that under the unsettled conditions they may escape justice. It is the first concern of the Dail and of the Provisional Government to secure their capture and trial. Every good citizen is exhorted to assist in apprehending the murderers of innocent people. The Irish nation consists of no one class or creed. It combines all, and whosoever injures or seeks to injure a fellow citizen because of his class or creed is an enemy of the nation, and will be treated by the Government as such.
2314
To put down outrage and murder and to ensure to every citizen security and personal liberty is the prime duty of Governments. So far as power resides in our hands we shall assert this duty, and we are confident that all true Irishmen will assist us in so doing.'"
Sir T. POLSON: Who was that? De Valera and the other fellow?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the organ, "The Free State," supporting the Provisional Government, they wrote as follows. I quote this because there is in the mind of some hon. Gentlemen an idea that no effort is being made by the Provisional Government to bring murderers to justice. It is one thing to say that the Provisional Government are indifferent or that they connive, and it is another thing to say that they have no power.
Mr. GWYNNE: Is it not the fact that the Provisional Government did not punish any criminals, and that even in those cases where convictions were obtained they were released the next day?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I asked my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, but he could not give any information which would confirm the hon. Member's statement. "The Free State," the organ of the Provisional Government, writes:
"It is a stain on the glory of Cork that such unspeakable deeds should be done when the custody of life is in the hands of the people themselves. It is a sad and bitter reproach to all Ireland, and it is not rendered the less bitter because it is only one startling and concentrated flashlight on the many semi-political murders that are being committed up and down the country week after week. We must be honest and courageous with ourselves and not hide from ourselves the fact that our war has produced the aftermath of moral chaos that all wars always produce, and we should take all these frightful crimes as a lesson that Peace is the way of life and should be chosen except in the last extremity in preference to war. We need not let ourselves be swept away in an unintelligent reaction, but we must, every one of us and not only Governments or parties, make up our minds that we must have peace and that murder must stop. Ireland looks to the people of Cork to show that they are decent Christians by dealing justly with the perpetrators of this crime."
I cite this, and I might cite other protests to show that the Provisional Government has denounced actively and strongly, in language that we ourselves should use, the perpetrators of these crimes, and, in

2315
such language as we ourselves should use in similar circumstances, they have declared their determination to pursue and to bring to justice the perpetrators.
Now I come to the question of ability. I would ask the House to remember the difficulties under which the Provisional Government work. They are a Provisional Government. The Treaty which we signed with their representatives in London has not yet been submitted to the mass of the Irish people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is believed, and I believe, that the vast mass of the Irish people are in favour of its acceptance, and that a growing proportion recognise that the majority are in favour of acceptance and that the will of the majority should prevail. In the meantime, however, a section of the old Irish Republican Army or of new recruits who have joined it, are in revolt against the Provisional Government. They have denounced its authority, and the Provisional Government has not yet been able to establish its authority throughout the country. At this moment negotiations between the two parties have been resumed. I do not know whether they will be successful. We may be on the eve of a very critical situation which may result in a real clash at any moment in Ireland between the forces supporting the Provisional Government and the forces who are resisting it. Under these circumstances is it always possible for the Provisional Government, throughout all Ireland, in districts where their authority has not yet been established and where they have not yet the power or the force to establish it, to ensure justice, to prevent crime or to bring the perpetrators of crime to justice?
After all, there have been in other places other murders, and the prevention of the crime and the detection of the criminals and the bringing of them to justice has not proved so easy a task. Have we a right to impute apathy or connivance to the Provisional Government because, in their extraordinarily difficult position, they have not yet been able to establish order? I do not desire to speak with too great optimism, but I believe and I profoundly hope that the power of the Provisional Government, which is a Government of peace and of good will, is growing and that, given a
2316
little time, they will get a clear mandate from the Irish people and will establish their authority throughout the whole of the twenty-six counties; and that, with the establishment of their authority, they will bring back justice and put down crime. They cannot do it all at once.
Then my hon. Friends ask me, "Will not the British Government act?" My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) quoted a famous and rather rhetorical passage of Lord Palmerston, and then became as eloquent and almost as rhetorical as the model which he had taken. If a foreign Government does not try to protect our subjects, we should take strong action, but if a foreign Government is doing its best to protect our subjects and to bring those who have wronged them to justice then, because that country at the moment is in a state of rebellion, emerging from a civil war and verging on another, we should not go to war with them. I do not see, therefore, why we should have less patience and consideration with the Provisional Government of Ireland. [Interruption.] I think the House will see that I am trying to cover the ground, but hon. Members are so anxious that I should always deal with the point to which I have not yet come. If I get as favourable attention as the criticisms with which I am dealing at the moment received, I shall feel more confidence, when I come, to deal with the points which they desire, that they will pay any attention to what I say.
That is the position. "Why do you not do something?" asks an hon. Member. I ask the House very seriously to consider, very gravely to consider, what is happening. We have no police force in Ireland with which we can help these officers. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend will permit me, I am not now dealing with the past or trying to justify the past.
Sir W. DAVISON: You are responsible for it.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am responsible for it. I stand here to-day twice challenged in the House by the hon. Member and others. I stand here with my responsibility covered and approved, my action endorsed by a great majority—
Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: How was that majority composed?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN—of the party which was good enough to place its confidence in me and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law). The great majority of the party to which the hon. Member used to belong—
Sir F. BANBURY: We belong to it. You have deserted it.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN—supported the action which the Government took.
Sir H. CRAIK: Did you ask us before you took it?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not going to justify my action in the past—action which the House has approved. That is not relevant to the subject of our Debate this evening, except in so far as the action taken by the Government in the past, and embodied by Parliament in the Act establishing the Provisional Government, limits our rights or our powers to act at this moment. I am not asking the House to discuss again the question, nor am I asking my hon. Friends to try again the question of whether we were right in signing the Treaty. We are not asking whether we should give the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act a Second Reading or a Third Reading. We arc asking whether the Government ought to take and could take effectively some steps at this moment, in the circumstances in which we now stand, which would cause the release of these officers or give greater protection to the lives of those who are serving us in Ireland. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson) spoke quietly, but in strong language. He talked of our incompetence. That is a charge which is brought against every Government and every Minister. I invite my hon. and gallant Friend and my other hon. Friends to consider what the Government could do, and what the consequences would be.
Mr. ERSKINE: Go to Ireland.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does anybody think that my colleagues are deterred from going to Ireland by personal cowardice? Surely the House does not believe such a thing. If anyone of us thought that we could be more effective by going over to Ireland at this moment, of course, we
2318
would go gladly. That suggestion really is unworthy. I am asking my hon. Friends and those who support them in this demand that we should take some Steps, owing to the admitted inability of the Provisional Government to give protection in all parts of Ireland, to consider what their advice tends to, and what must be the inevitable results of their advice.
Sir H. WILSON: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, as he has admitted the inability to look after our soldiers, he should take a further step, and that is to withdraw the soldiers.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend is quite fair. These soldiers were not kidnapped while on duty. I have already put it to the House that the question of withdrawing troops from Cork or from any other part of Ireland is one that must be reviewed from time to time, and is so reviewed. We concentrate the troops in two places; we have not left them scattered about unprotected, but for reasons I have given we think it would be undesirable to hasten the process of evacuation on which we have decided in the present unsettled condition of Ireland. I suspect that if we had withdrawn the troops my hon. and gallant Friend would not have been the last person to criticise us for that action. I ask the House to consider that we no longer have control of the constabulary. We no longer have in every village, in every town, in every city, police, and in many places up and down the country military assistance at their backs if they require it. We have deliberately, and the House with us, transferred this primary responsibility to the Provisional Government. My belief is that the Provisional Government are doing their best to exercise it. I believe that presently they will be able to exercise it fully, and will give this protection.
Do you want us to step in at this moment and say to the Provisional Government: "You have failed. The thing is at an end. The Provisional Government is at an end. We come in to restore law and order." If you want that, that is what every enemy of the Treaty in Southern Ireland, every supporter of Mr. De Valera against Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith is praying that they may induce us or compel us to do. These outrages are largely committed by

2319
men as hostile to the Treaty as my hon. and gallant Friend himself, but far less scrupulous in their methods of attack. They are as hostile as my hon. and gallant Friend, but they are wholly unscrupulous in their methods of attack. They want to bring the British Government once more into the struggle in order that they may represent the struggle, not as it is now between Irishmen who are in favour of peace within the British Empire, and in favour of law and order within their own country and under their own Government, and men who are disputing and agitating against both these ends; they want to bring back again the old struggle between this country and Ireland.
For Heaven's sake, with all our bitter memories, with all our failures, and with all our ill-success, do let us give the Provisional Government a chance before we decide that there is nothing for it but to return to the old weary way of trying to dragoon Ireland into peace. I do not want to underrate the anxieties of the present moment or to palliate or excuse any crimes which have been committed, but I do put it to the House that they will not save the lives of loyal subjects in Ireland and they will not save the lives of soldiers by recommencing what must be a civil war, and that if they will not give the Provisional Government a reasonable opportunity to establish its authority, after these years of revolution and of crime, they have no other course open but to go back to where we were on the day when the negotiations were first begun, resume the old warfare, raise the additional men which are necessary to carry it out and, at a loss of life considerably greater and accompanied by an amount of crime not less than before, to fight out the struggle to a bitter finish that will end in subjection but not in reconciliation.
Colonel GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman has taunted my hon. and gallant Friend with making use of the word "cowardice." There is such a thing as moral cowardice. That was the charge which was brought against the Government. What is the issue raised in this Debate? Three officers have been kidnapped in Ireland. What are the Government doing to ascertain what their fate is, and, if possible, to rescue them? We have had no answer. We are told
2320
that there is no news, and the Government to-night have not assisted the House We repudiate the charge, which the right hon. Gentleman brought against the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Motion, and others who have taken part in the Debate, that we have used this occasion to raise the whole Irish Question as a shuttlecock in some game of politics. I hope that our position in this House is known to be more straightforward than the right; hon. Gentleman appears to think.
10.0 P.M.
We do not play, and do not intend to play, some game of double shuffle with the lives of His Majesty's subjects. Far from it. The Debate was raised honestly and straightforwardly to obtain information and, if possible, an assurance from His Majesty's Government. We have had none. Does the right hon. Gentleman, who has drawn a red herring across the path, say that in desiring to take action to secure the lives of soldiers and British subjects in Ireland we are raising the whole Irish Question? I would remind the House that the position which has now arisen is one which the Government has done much to create. How much are you going to stand? Are you going to stand meekly, helplessly, appealing, supplicatingly, in face of every outrage and every crime? Where is this inaction going to stop? Do you not think that the time has come when you might show some more firmness, and indicate your firmness to both parties in Ireland? I do not think that the division is so wide between those parties in Ireland as the right hon. Gentleman appears to indicate. Do you not think that you might in all fairness to the Irish people indicate to them that in certain eventualities they will destroy the Treaty and make intervention inevitable? The only firmness which the right hon. Gentleman shows is to threaten Members of this House with what the consequences would be if they should unhappily vote against His Majesty's Government tonight. The issues to-night are greater and wider than the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to indicate. Is this House always to stand inert in the face of every insult in Ireland to British soldiers and servants of the Crown?
This case to-night is not an isolated one. There are civilians who have been lost, whose lives certainly are in as great

2321
danger as the lives of those officers. We have not raised the whole question. We have been careful to confine ourselves to one issue. The right hon. Gentleman says that we tried to raise the whole Irish Question. If we had thought that that would be in order on this occasion, we should have come down prepared to face the wider issue. Now we are prepared to do so. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a day to go into the whole position in Ireland—not merely one incident such as may be raised on the Motion for Adjournment at a, quarter past eight, tout all the Irish position as it stands to-day? We want to press His Majesty's Government as to what they are going to do to deal with the situation. Ireland to-day is in a stage of chaos and disorder. Government troops are still there exposed to danger and outrage. If they move from their quarters they are exposed to kidnapping or other violence. Surely it is a military axiom that if you have troops in a country they must be allowed to defend themselves or be removed. If they are not allowed to defend themselves they are useless, and merely a target for insults and a source of weakness. If the Government do not intend to use these troops they should withdraw them.
The Government have not told us why they are there. They are there because the, Government do not think it wise at present to withdraw them. Do the Government intend to lend them to the Provisional Government to restore order? We have not been told. I press the Leader of the House to allow someone on the Front Bench to answer that question. The position is profoundly unsatisfactory. We have heard nothing from the Government as to what can be done for the safety and welfare of the officers who have been kidnapped. That is the issue of the Debate. The Government can give us no assurance whatever. They profess complete ignorance and helplessness. As to the future, they indicate that incidents of this kind may multiply to an extent to which they place no limit. They say the Provisional Government must have a chance. There are two sides to any Treaty. Surely the statesmanlike and correct thing is for the Government to indicate that if the Provisional Government fails to carry out its side of the bargain the Treaty will be null and void, a new situation will be created, and
2322
action will be taken by the Government accordingly. Nothing which the right hon. Gentleman has said can be satisfactory to any party in the House, and unless some other Minister can get up and give us that satisfaction, we shall be obliged to ask the House to express its opinion on the situation.
Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: If it is not presumptuous, I would like to thank the Leader of the House for what has fallen from his lips. His speech was a clear, strong, and magnanimous answer to the criticisms that have come from the opposite benches. This Debate, is concerned with the kidnapping of three British officers, who may possibly lose their lives. That must appeal straight to the hearts of every Member of this House, and especially to the hearts of those who have served in the Forces. I ask the House to consider how those officers would be helped, supposing there was an adverse vote against the Government to-night. What is the exact position in which we stand? The actual position is that, for better or worse we have had a Treaty approved by a very great majority of the House. There is to be an election in Ireland in a very short time, and if the Provisional Government wins, it will have at its back a mandate which it has not now. Meanwhile, there will be a state of disorder, with violence, murder, and plunder, that you must have in every country which is going through that transition stage. It is obvious what Mr. de Valera wants to do. He is anxious for one or both of two things. One is to discredit the Provisional Government, which he can do by having these various officers of ours in mufti kidnapped. The second thing, and that he will probably desire even more, is to bring us back to reconquer Ireland. If we do that now, we merely confirm the chaos existing in Ireland and put a British stamp on it.
When friends of mine, like my Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) beside me, take the attitude they have adopted, I wonder whether they realise what that attitude must mean to the outside world. Surely all that they are doing is this: They are standing for the forces of reaction in this country and playing into the hands of the forces of disorder in Ireland. From their lips nothing constructive has fallen to-night. One suggestion which

2323
my Noble Friend reiterated several times was that a member of the Cabinet should go to Ireland. In the War many of us who happened to be abroad wanted members of the Cabinet to be in the trenches, because we would have liked to have seen some of them shot. That was an intelligible but not a reasoned point of view at the moment. The function of the House of Commons is to legislate. Its function is not to go to any part of the world where there is trouble. There is trouble at the moment in Palestine. Does my Noble Friend want to send the Cabinet to Jericho? Then there is my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson). He made a more definite suggestion. It was that the troops should be withdrawn from Ireland. You have had this Treaty passed, for good or evil, by the majority of this House. Once this House determines to sanction the policy of the Government, the Government must be given a certain margin of authority in very difficult circumstances. Without any offence to my hon. and gallant Friend the Field Marshal, I say that if I had been an officer and, at the same time, a Member of this House, I am sure that he, as my superior officer, would not have allowed me to criticise the Government in their executive function.
I want to make two other points. There are Members of this House who, consciously or unconsciously, want us once again to involve ourselves in Irish politics. There is one mentality with which I have been familiar for many years, and which I once had myself, and it is this: There are many of us who would rather see ourselves opposed by a real enemy of this country than by a moderate man who wants to come to terms. That is very easy to understand. In the past this country has always had such a big balance at the bank of power that it was easy for us to afford any enmity, because we could always smash it. To-day we have so many commitments that, putting aside the morality of that attitude, that is no longer a easy thing for us to do. When we meet with conciliation wherever it might be, we ought to stretch out our hands to it.
The Leader of the House said that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne), had initiated this Debate in very moderate and quiet language. That is absolutely true, and my hon.
2324
Friend is a man who speaks purely from conscience, but all the same, at the back of that quiet and humble appeal, which he made to-night, there does lie an appeal to passion, and passion, to-day, only breeds passion. This is not really an appeal for the three officers who have been kidnapped. There is not one of us who would not do anything we could for the officers, but at the actual moment we can do nothing violent to help these men. To a man like myself, and I think there are a large number of us in the House, the situation appears in this way. We have, after 700 years, given the Irish people the direction of their own affairs and we are not going to be driven into taking sides again in Ireland. We have seen quite enough to show where that policy ends. The contagion of that poison has gone right over the Empire. I think all who listened to the Leader of the House must have realised that these things are as painful to him as to any man in the House. In speaking as he did, he must make himself the target for many poisoned arrows, but I think it will be realised that he has the great body of the House behind him in the speech which he made to-night.
Sir W. DAVISON: In the few words that I address to the House, I do not propose to deal with the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, especially as he himself said he was only emphasising what had been said by the Leader of the House. I wish, however, to refer to the speech of the Leader of the House, a speech which was remarkable in its character, and was most remarkable by reason of the fact that it dealt very little with the three officers regarding whom this Debate originated. Nor did the right hon. Gentleman, as far as I was able to hear, give the House any information as to what practical steps, if any, the Government had taken to secure the release of these three officers and their chauffeur. The only information on that subject of which I, personally, am aware, was elicited from the Chief Secretary for Ireland when I questioned him regarding the fate of these men on Monday. After a question on the Paper, and two supplementary questions, all I was able to get from the right hon. Gentleman was that after nearly three weeks' incarceration of these men, the British Government had made representations to the Provisional Government and sent to

2325
a Roman Catholic Bishop to invoke his assistance. That is an extraordinary statement for a British Government to submit to the House of Commons as all they have been able to do when three British officers have been kidnapped. The Leader of the House in speaking to-night —I am sorry he has withdrawn—said the issue before the House was really whether we should go back on the peace effort which we had initiated, and he went on to say, "I can understand those hon. Members who have opposed this Irish Treaty from the first taking the earliest opportunity of pointing out to the House how it has failed, and how it is time some steps should be taken to withdraw from the action which the Government initiated, but I cannot understand how the great majority of the House who supported this Treaty can now go back upon the votes which they gave."
Then, again, in his speech, when I challenged him and said that he was responsible for the state of affairs which now exists in Ireland, he turned round and said, "Yes, I am responsible, but the House has on more than one occasion, by large majorities, approved that responsibility." On behalf of the House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]— on behalf, I should say, of a considerable number of Members of the House of Commons, and a very large number of supporters of the Government outside, I say this, that they gave their support to this Treaty because of the representations which were made by the Government, and that they were misled into giving their votes for this Treaty, and I will tell the House why. We all know that the Prime Minister came down to this House and told the Members of the House of Commons that after 700 years of strife and turmoil peace had been obtained in Ireland. He told the House of Commons that we had come to a time when England's hour of adversity would no longer be Ireland's opportunity to strike her in the back, but that England's time of adversity would be Ireland's opportunity to come and help her. Therefore, I say that Members of the House of Commons, not knowing Ireland and the Irish Question as well as some of the Members who sit on this Bench know it, having lived there and having known every phase of the Irish Question for years past, were, I think, almost bound to accept—they had no
2326
other means of judging—the statement made by the Government that they had obtained peace after all these years. Therefore, when the Leader of the House turns round and says that his responsibility was endorsed by the large majority of the House of Commons, I say that that endorsement was obtained by a false pretence.
We have had no reply to the question which was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson). It is the same question which I took down to the Table of the House and which has been refused by the officers at the Table. The question was this: Why are British troops retained in Southern Ireland when they are forbidden to give protection to the large number of persons who are daily appealing in vain to the British Government and to the Provisional Government for protection for their lives and property? We have had no explanation of that. If we are to have troops in Ireland, we share the responsibility of these outrages which are being perpetrated within a stone's throw of this British garrison that is being maintained in Cork. Why are these officers and men kept there, endangering their lives every time they leave the barracks? As the Leader of the House, I think it was, said, you cannot immure, men in barracks and never allow them outside, though, as a matter of fact, from the information at my disposal, there are certain small detachments beyond Cork and Dublin, where the officers and men have not been allowed out of barracks for weeks and weeks past and are in very serious danger if any raid were made upon them. Only to-day the Leader of the House says: Are we going to turn down this great experiment of freedom because a few more murders have been committed?
Has the right hon. Gentleman read the speech delivered yesterday, I think, by the Irish Primate in Dublin, in which he said there is no doubt that the Protestants in the South are living in "a veritable reign of terror: indeed, a nightmare of terrifying events has been their lot for some time." After that statement of the Irish Primate, a most moderate man, who never speaks more strongly than events warrant, is it not time, when people are living in this state of terror, that the British Government,

2327
for whom the Leader of the House has spoken to-night, and acknowledged their responsibility for these events, did something? If the Provisional Government in Ireland are unable to secure the observance of law and order, surely the responsibility of the British Government ought to be resumed. As I have pointed out before, the Colonial Secretary secured in the House of Commons a Vote of millions and millions of money to be sunk and lost in Iraq. Why? I challenged him about it, and he turned round to these benches and said that the British Government had destroyed the Turkish Government in that country, and a state of anarchy would be the result if British troops were to be removed before a fixed Government was set up in its place. And yet that is the very thing the British Government have done in Ireland, not a thousand or two thousand miles from these shores, but only 17 miles. In the interest of the Treaty and of the Provisional Government, it was an act of madness to remove police, soldiers and organisation of Government before a real Government was in working order. I say that a grave responsibility rests on His Majesty's Government. The Leader of the House was not present Himself, but I understand he has been informed of the pitiful deputation from Southern Ireland that waited on Members of this House a few days ago. Men came here with nothing but the clothes they stood in.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is travelling a very long way from the subject on which the Adjournment was moved.
Sir W. DAVISON: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the House, in his lengthy remarks, stated that the issue before the House to-night was whether we should go back on the peace effort we initiated last year, and certainly the greater part of his speech was to urge the House not to go back on what they have done, and, because a few more murders have been committed, throw away this peace initiative. In deference, however, to what you say, Mr. Speaker, I will not go further on those lines, but I do think it is germane to my argument to point out the terrible state of affairs in all classes of life in Southern Ireland. I have in my hands the deplorable case of a man holding His Majesty's Commission, H.M. Lieutenant for the
2328
County of Roscommon, who was dragged away in the middle of the night, his wife taken from her bed, his chauffeur thrown in a pond outside the house, and then his house burned down, and now the lady has died from shock, and the life of Mr. Talbot, His Majesty's Lieutenant, is despaired of. This sort of thing is happening every day, and humbler folk came here last week, men in small businesses, who have had to leave their homes at the point of the revolver, at a few hours' notice. And now three British officers for nearly three weeks have disappeared, and all that His Majesty's Government do is to make representations, and ask a Roman Catholic bishop if he cannot do something to restore these men. The British House of Commons has always stood for liberty, and at one time we were proud to be British citizens. In early Christian days St. Paul said, "I am a Roman citizen," and was instantly released, and I can remember when it was a proud boast for a man to say, "I am a British citizen—touch me if you dare!" That proud boast, I am sorry to say, is not one that any of us can now share with pride. Now that the Prime Minister of this land shakes hands with murderers, and when the murder of British citizens takes place we only make representations and go to priests and ask them to shrive the people who are murdered. I do hope that this House of Commons, whatever votes they may have given in the past, will look at the situation at the present time, and will say that now, as in the past, British subjects, British citizens, wherever they are, whether in a foreign country, in the Dominions, in these kingdoms, or wherever else, shall be protected in their lives and in their property.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The remarks of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) leave me in considerable confusion of mind. Towards the end of his speech he made a strong attack upon the Government in having taken away their troops and disbanded the police before the Provisional Government were in a position to take over the responsibility. Earlier in his speech he had used no less unmeasured language as to the action of the Government in still holding Cork. I should like to know on which leg he stands: as I do not see how he can stand on both I Criticism of the Government

2329
to-night has consisted very largely in a general demand for stronger action, but no one has put forward any suggestion as to what effective action could, under present conditions, be maintained. Everybody must feel a deep anxiety as to the position, but I do not see what more can be done, short of military intervention, than the steps announced by the Leader of the House to-night. I am quite sure that, though they have abstained from expressing that view, a great many of the critics who have spoken have military intervention in their minds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Very well, but the experiment of self-government has not yet been effectively tried in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] It has not! Some hon. Members do not seem to realise that there has been no election in Ireland, and it is difficult to see how it can be imagined that Ireland has yet been able to try its hand at governing itself. I do not know what is meant by interruptions.
Colonel NEWMAN: Why has there not been the election?
Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: Until Ireland has had an election, any intervention must be premature, and you would only be back in the same position where the Irish people could say, "We have never had a chance to try to run our own affairs."
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do you propose intervention after the election?
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: If after that election chaos continues, intervention is a practicable proposal. Under present conditions, to my mind, it is mere insanity. We have gone so far, and cannot turn back now. I can understand hon. Members fighting in the front trench. But I cannot understand, when all parties in this House agreed to follow the party leaders of the Coalition in their programme of trying self-government for Ireland, and have thus deliberately vacated the main position that they should suddenly, in a fit of disgust, take up a position in a trench at the back of the rest camp. That is really the attitude of some hon. Members under present circumstances. [Interruption.] I do not want to be unjust to any hon. Member, but I do say that hon. Members voted as I have said. Let mc repeat what
2330
I said. It was that all parties followed their leaders at the last election. Did my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) put in his election address that he was going to repudiate the promise of his then leader that he was going to try self-government in Ireland?
Sir H. CRAIK: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the policy announced by the Government in 1918 is identical with the policy which the Government are now putting forward?
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The policy announced by the Leader of the Unionist party before the General Election was that every path to self-government short of complete separation from the British Empire was to be explored. The majority of the Unionist party did not repudiate the undertaking that Home Rule was to be tried, but all this is really beside the point which I am trying to make which is that it is very foolish to start an experiment and change your mind half-way through. Perhaps my right hon. Friend did not do that, and if so, he must have a little consideration for those who did think it wise to make the experiment, and it is to this point that I am speaking. Is England under present conditions going to be able to stop by anything short of a heavy military expedition the disorders which are now going on in the South of Ireland?
Does the House forget that before a single Black-and-Tan had been raised there wore 100 men murdered under British rule in Ireland for which no one was brought to justice I Do hon. Members forget that a British General was kidnapped under British responsibility for Ireland, and there was no very great difference in the way dastardly crimes were dealt with? It would be disastrous if we went back to a policy of vacillation, because that would only be playing into the hands of the anarchists, who are praying for intervention at the present time. The wreckers in Ireland want to strengthen their position, because they know that Irish public opinion is beginning to recognise these bandits as criminal nuisances, and they recognise that British intervention would reinstate them as popular heroes. I would only ask those who, I admit in all honesty, are impatient, and who wish to see immediate intervention there, whether they think

2331
they can effectively protect the law-abiding inhabitants of Southern Ireland if they intervene under present conditions? Do they think the country will sanction the military effort that would be necessary for a far more effective protection than was given during the last three years? Do they think we shall be able to have the troops to prevent the murders which were taking place before the Treaty came into force? Do they think that this country is prepared to go into Ireland again and to stay there? I say that, if they are not prepared to go chat length, and if they merely advocate a sporadic intervention, they are but supporting the greater betrayal of the law-abiding citizens there.
Sir H. CRAIK: I am not prepared to follow the hon. and gallant Member into the casuistries to which he has treated us to-night, but I should have liked to refer for a moment, if he had not left the House, after delivering a few-paradoxes and humorous hits against his opponents, to the observations of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. A. Herbert). I see that the hon. Member has now returned. I think that, when he learns longer of life he will find that grave political questions are not to be decided by paradoxes and by attempted sarcasms and gibes against his opponents.
Mr. A. HERBERT: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I should be very glad if he would give one instance of any paradox that I have uttered.
Sir H. CRAIK: The hon. Member said that he thought it was a very good thing to suggest that some members of the Government might be sent to the trenches, and that many of us thought that it was the best place for them. Does he think that that was a contribution of sound counsel? I wish to deal with the matter in a more quiet and careful manner. As regards my Leader, the Leader of the House, I have owed for many years, and have paid, sound and solid service to him. It is an hereditary service, because I knew him who went before him, and who was one of our great leaders. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, Was he quite fair to those of us, his followers, in the words that he used to-night? [Interruption.] I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks he was quite
2332
fair to those of us who have difficulty in following him upon the very doubtful course which he has taken? I know he spoke with the greatest consideration, as he always does, and he did not wish to raise any strong feelings on our part, but he said to us: "You broke away from your leaders. You deserted your party." I asked him: "Had you, before you announced that decision, when we had found ourselves in the very difficult position of having to oppose you, asked us what our opinion was?"
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend interjected that question. I could not understand at the time why he interjected it, because it was wholly irrelevant to what I was saying. I now understand it is because he did not hear what I said—
Sir H. CRAIK: Yes, I did.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And supposed me to have said something different. I never reproached him or hon. Gentlemen within my party who take a different view on this question. In all the speeches I have made and in face of all the charges which have been levelled against me, I have carefully refrained from saying one word to challenge the good faith and perfect propriety of the action which they took on a great departure in public policy.
Sir H. CRAIK: I thank my right hon. Friend for those words, but he knows that I, whoever else, have never brought against him any charge of dishonourable conduct or in any way brought a personal charge against him. But let me go a little further. I thought he said that we as a small minority of the Conservative party were blameable because we did not follow his lead.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.
Sir H. CRAIK: I quite admit that he did not mean to say that.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say it.
Sir H. CRAIK: What did my right hon. Friend go on to say? I can understand why those who oppose this policy were anxious to take the very earliest opportunity of proving that he was wrong. Is that the case? Have we not held ourselves as long as patience was possible? I assure him I was unwilling to move against it once the decision of the House

2333
of Commons had been taken, much as I disapproved and dissented from it. I waited patiently, but day by day the catalogue of crimes and breaches of the truce grew. Day after day the disgrace inflicted upon the British Government in neglecting their responsibilities has grown greater and now, if it has come to this point, that we cannot any longer support him, is the right hon. Gentleman acting as fairly as I know he desires to do when he says to us, "It was natural for you who opposed us at first to take the very earliest opportunity of upsetting our arrangements." We did not do so. We feel, I am certain the heart of Great Britain feels, that the Government has gone as far as it was possible to go in abandoning its responsibilities and in seeing, within a few miles of our own territory, Ireland given over to anarchy, and barbarous anarchy at that. That is why the right hon. Gentleman finds that those old and most loyal supporters of himself and his father and of our leaders are unable now to follow him in this course, and, powerless as we may be, we must feel in honour bidden by our conscience to raise our protest against what is being done in Ireland, and for what our great Empire is being made responsible.
Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I only want to bring the House back to the real object of the Motion, which was to ask the Government what they had done and proposed to do to release three British officers and a British private from captivity, and if possible to save their lives. Anybody who has sat through this Debate, as I have, will realise that the Government say, "We have done nothing effective; we can do nothing effective without intervention by force, and we are not prepared to intervene by force because we consider that the larger issues"—the lives of four men are, apparently, not a large issue — "will be jeopardised thereby." If that is the view of the Government, though I cannot assent to it, I can see their point of view.
What is the position? We have now in Cork, Dublin, and a few other places a considerable body of British troops. The Government acknowledge that they cannot protect these troops. The troops are not allowed to protect themselves. What is the only way out of this impasse? If the Government cannot protect the
2334
troops, though, I suppose, they wish to do so, and the troops arc not allowed to protect themselves and to use their arms, in case they should break the peace in Ireland, the only thing seems to me to withdraw those troops at once from Ireland. What useful purpose do they serve? Are they supporting law and order? No. Arc they supporting the Provisional Government? No. Are they preventing outrage and people being deprived of their lives and property? No. Can they protect themselves? No. For what object are they kept on there? Let us withdraw them. Either send others in such large numbers as would re-establish law and order, or withdraw them altogether. There is no middle course. Therefore I urge the Government, as they cannot protect these troops—they say they cannot—to withdraw them at once from Ireland and let the Irish fight among themselves.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not intend to talk out the Motion, but I wish to explain why I intend to vote for it. It is many months since I intervened in an Irish Debate in this House, although there have been several in which I could have intervened. In the first place, I believe that it should be made clear in Ireland, by a voice coming from every quarter of the House, that British officers and soldiers cannot be treated in this way with impunity. I therefore rise, and am sure I have the support of those around me when I say that we should make it perfectly clear that this game, which is being played with these officers and soldiers in Ireland, is dangerous.
Secondly, I look upon the retention of these comparatively small bodies of troops in Cork and Dublin as a sign of wobbling on the part of the Government. Either Ireland should be allowed to find her own salvation entirely, whatever the result of the elections, or, as suggested on the other side of the House with perfect propriety and logic, we should send over sufficient troops to restore order. There is no choice between the two policies. We must clear out altogether or have sufficient troops to have our prestige, which we are always losing at the hands of the present Government, respected. I am afraid the Government are keeping these troops in Ireland because they do not know their

2335
own mind and are still afraid they will once more have to change their policy, as they have done in other parts of the world. That is why these British officers and soldiers are placed in danger.
I have had occasion in this House on more than one occasion to draw attention to outrages against British subjects. I did it two days ago with regard to certain fishermen of ours. That was in the case of an alien Government altogether. There is, to all intents and purposes, an independent Government nominally to-day in Ireland. We must make it clear from the very beginning that we look to that Government to respect our subjects in exactly the same way as we look to any other Government in any part of the world to respect them.
Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Another recruit for the Die-hards
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, but I am saying this because my vote might be misinterpreted if I did not explain it. I am absolutely opposed to any form of intervention in Ireland, but there are forms of pressure to be brought to bear against any Government if only we make it clear that we are determined to stand behind our citizens. It is because it would be wrong that all the protests against this kidnapping should come from one party that I say these few words.
I intend to vote for this Motion, and I hope hon. Members on these benches, or some of them, will support me. I have never hesitated to criticise the Government or their own officers when I think they have exceeded their duty in Ireland. Now that they are in trouble I intend to stand by them. I believe that the Government, by adopting proper measures, could do very much to lighten the lot of
the troops that are left in Ireland. Above all, we should make it perfectly clear at the earliest possible moment that every vestige of British power should be withdrawn. The presence of these troops in Cork and Dublin is a source of weakness to the Provisional Government themselves. I believe their enemies in Ireland represent that they are kept there at the request of the Provisional Government. It would be very unfortunate if that came to be generally believed in Ireland. The Government are very largely to blame fox-having these troops in Ireland. They are very largely to blame for the kidnapping of these officers, but, as the thing has happened, I want to urge that all parts of this House should join in making it clear to the Provisional Government, or any other Government in Ireland, that our officers and men cannot be treated in this way with impunity.
Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Those who support the Government have a right to say why they support them on this occasion. Those who vote for this Motion ought to know that they are voting for war with Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] It is not rubbish.
Mr. GWYNNE Mr. GWYNNE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Those who support this Motion are voting for war with Ireland, and it is only right that the country should know the reason why.
Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided: Ayes, 64: Noes, 258.

Division No. 102.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

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

Lindsay, William Arthur

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

M'Connell, Thomas Edward

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

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

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

Maddocks, Henry

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Moles, Thomas

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

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

Gretton, Colonel John

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Blair, Sir Reginald

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Nail, Major Joseph

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

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

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

Butcher, Sir John George

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Nield, Sir Herbert

Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

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

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Pickering, Colonel Emll W.

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Wolmer, Viscount

poison, Sir Thomas A.

Stewart, Gershom

Rawllnson, John Frederick Peel

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Reid, D. D.

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Mr. Rupert Gwynne and Viscount Curzon.

Remnant, Sir James

Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry

NOES.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Foreman, Sir Henry

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

Forestler-Walker, L.

Lunn, William

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Forrest, Walter

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Amery, Leopold C. M.S.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachie)

Armitage, Robert

Galbraith, Samuel

McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

Gange, E. Stanley

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Atkey, A. R.

Ganzonl, Sir John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Gilbert, James Daniel

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Gillis, William

Manville, Edward

Banton, George

Glimour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Martin, A. E.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Glyn, Major Ralph

Mason, Robert

Barlow, Sir Montague

Gould, James C.

Matthews, David

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Middlebrook, Sir William

Barnston, Major Harry

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Molson, Major John Eisdale

Barrand, A. R.

Grant, James Augustus

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Morris, Richard

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

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

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Betterton, Henry B.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

Murchison, C. K.

Bigland, Alfred

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Birchall, J. Dearman

Gregory, Holman

Myers, Thomas

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

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Neal, Arthur

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Grundy, T. W.

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

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

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

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

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

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Breese, Major Charles E.

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

Parker, James

Briggs, Harold

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Hallwood, Augustine

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Bromfield, William

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

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Brown, Major D. C.

Halls, Walter

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

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hancock, John George

Perring, William George

Bruton, Sir James

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

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

Hartshorn, Vernon

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Haslam, Lewis

Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Burdon, Colonel Rowland

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Cairns, John

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

Rae, H. Norman

Cape, Thomas

Higham, Charles Frederick

Rattan, peter Wilson

Carr, w. Theodore

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Rankin, Captain James Stuart

Casey, T. W.

Hills, Major John Waller

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hinds, John

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

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

Hirst, G. H.

Renter, J. R.

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Renwick, Sir George

Clough, Sir Robert

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Coats, Sir Stuart

Hood, Sir Joseph

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

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Hopkins, John W. W.

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

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Hudson, R. M.

Robertson, John

Cope, Major William

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)

Hurd, Percy A.

Rodger, A. K.

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

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

Rose, Frank H.

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Jephcott, A. R.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Royce, William Stapleton

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Johnstone, Joseph

Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

Doyle, N. Grattan

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Edgar, Clifford B.

Kennedy, Thomas

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Edge, Captain Sir William

Kenyon, Barnet

Seager, Sir William

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bertweilty)

Kidd, James

Seddon, J. A.

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Sexton, James

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Lawson, John James

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Evans, Ernest

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

Simm, M. T.

Falcon, Captain Michael

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

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

Fell, Sir Arthur

Lloyd, George Butler

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Fildes, Henry

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

Stanton, Charles Butt

Finney, Samuel

Lorden, John William

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Lort-Williams, J.

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Sturrock, J. Leng

Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

Sugden, W. H.

2338

2339

Sutherland, Sir William

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

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

Sutton, John Edward

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

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

Swan, J. E.

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Worsfold, T. Cato

Taylor, J.

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

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

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Younger, Sir George

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

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

Tickler, Thomas George

Windsor, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Townley, Maximilian G.

Winterton, Earl

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.

Tryon, Major George Clement

Wise, Frederick

Waddington, R.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

WOMEN POLICE PATROLS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I wish to raise again the question of the disbandment of the women police patrols, and to show how their retention will help towards economy in prisons, hospitals and workhouses, will result in a great improvement in public health, and will help to maintain public morals. In reply to a question which I put to the Home Secretary on Monday he informed the House that already 12 of the women patrols had been disbanded and that the rest were under notice to go. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will delay the dismissal of the remainder of the women police, for two reasons. The first is that the suggestion of the Geddes Committee to get rid of these women police was made only in consultation with the Home Secretary and the superintendent of the police, and there was no evidence from the Home Office Committee appointed in 1920. The second reason is the increased and universal interest in the matter which has been shown throughout the country recently. That interest has been expressed in three or four different ways. First of all, I believe a great many Members of Parliament have had a change of heart. That has, possibly, been due to the electors and to the public opinion behind them. I feel sure that, if a vote were taken of Members of this House, we should have a majority in favour of retaining these women police. Secondly, the organised women of all classes and all parties in the country are strongly of opinion that the women police should be retained. I refer to large bodies such as the National Council of Women, the Consultative Committee of Women's
2340
Organisations, which represents 67 women's societies, the Standing Joint Committee of Women's Industrial Organisations, the Women's Co-operative Guild, the Young Women's Christian Association, and many other women's societies which at this hour I will not mention. Another section that has pressed for the retention of the women police is composed of the churches and the philanthropic and rescue agencies. It is a fallacy to say that these bodies wish to do the work of the women patrols. They are very anxious to support the work which the women police are doing, but not to usurp it. Another class of societies affected, is that which includes professional and specialist societies such as the National Council for Preventing Venereal Disease. It realises how its work is going to be increased if these women are taken away from the Metropolitan Force. The College of Nursing realises how hospitals and workhouses are going to have much more to do if these women are disbanded. Then the Association of Head Mistresses realises the importance of the work which these women do in the matter of controlling and supervising children going to and from school.
Another class affected is the provisional local watch committees. At first it was thought these watch committees would follow suit, and dismiss their women police, after the Metropolitan force was disbanded. In my experience, the idea which prevails is very different. I think there is now a general recognition of the value of the work done by the women police in the provinces, especially as they have power to arrest, and the provinces are showing a superiority over London in discerning how women police are going to prove an economy, and to bring about an improvement in the moral tone of their towns. That idea is being expressed more and more freely. Such active representatives and expressions cannot be disregarded by the Home Secretary, and I appeal to him to respect this public

2341
opinion which is growing daily. A delay of a few weeks may save much readjustment if and when this House, as representing the electors and expressing their views, gives its vote in favour of the retention of the women police. For these reasons I beg the Home Secretary not to dispense with the services of any more of the women patrols until a vote of this House is taken, and when the vote does take place, I hope that he will allow it to be a free vote.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): In the first place, I ask the House to remember that the money for the women police is taken upon the Metropolitan Police Fund Vote, and that therefore any money spent on women police is money devoted to the police work, strictly speaking, of the metropolis, namely, the protection of property and life and limb with which the police have to do. I do not wish for a moment to belittle by one word what the hon. Member has said about the work of these women police. I do not wish to belittle the welfare work that they are doing. But I have to look at this from the point of view of the work which has to be done by the metropolitan police and paid for by the Metropolitan Police Fund. I have to consider what it is the Metropolitan Police Fund is to pay for. It is to pay for the protection of the property and life and limb of the populace in the metropolitan area. I have to consider how I can best meet the reduction in expenses that are required, and at the same time preserve the work which the metropolitan police are intended to do, and which the money voted for them is intended to pay for.
I should like, in the first place, to dissociate myself absolutely from a word which has been used with regard to the action we are taking, and that is the word "disbandment." I do not think, so far as I can remember, that I have ever used that word myself. This is not a question of disbanding. There is no question of destroying the women police as women police for all time. The point is, that we have, somehow or other, to reduce our expenditure on the Metropolitan Police, and I use the same word with regard to women police as with regard to the men police—the word "reduction." It is a matter of reduction, and I have to find in what respects I can reduce the expenditure. With
2342
regard to the men, we have reduced them to the lowest possible point. Indeed, I am having very great trouble on the part of those who are responsible for the men police, about the point to which I have asked them to reduce their force. I cannot possibly, having regard to the state of things, having regard to what the Metropolitan police have to do, ask that the male police should be reduced by an other man. We are down, in the hope of economy, to the very last verge that we can go to of the margin of 6afety. We cannot go further, and I am told on all hands by those who are responsible— superintendents, the chief constables, the assistant commissioners, and the Commissioner—" If you can see your way to saving £20,000 in the reductions we have got to make "—and £20,000 is what we shall save by reducing the women police as we propose—
Captain W. BENN: Abolishing them!
Mr. SHORTT: I object to the word "abolishing," and I have absolutely dissociated myself from it. I say "reducing."
Sir D. MACLEAN: To zero?
Mr. SHORTT: I answer, although it stops the flow of my argument, reducing to a point which can be restored at any moment. What does it matter what the number is if it can be restored at any moment?
Sir D. MACLEAN: Zero!
Mr. SHORTT: Zero, if you like. What does it matter if it can be restored at any moment?
Rear-Admiral SUETER: If it be zero you cannot restore it.
Mr. SHORTT: That is trivial. The point is that I have got to consider the safety of the Metropolis, having regard to the money I have got. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but possibly they do not know as much of the danger of the Metropolis as I do. I am told on ail hands: "If you can save anywhere, reducing expenditure by £20,000 if you can, let us have the £20,000 for Heaven's sake. Let us get more men, because that is what we want." That is what I am told by all my advisers, and, as I say, I do not want in the least to belittle the work of women police so far as it concerns the work they do, but

2343
it is not work which deals with purely police work as we know it. It is really welfare work, admirable welfare work, I agree entirely, and I agree to this extent, that welfare work always helps the police, always reduces crime, so far as sex crime is concerned, and it is a very great work indeed, but it is not the particular work for which the Metropolitan Police Fund was founded. The fact remains that the women police are doing first-rate work. It is not the work for which the Metropolitan Police Fund was founded.
Dr. MURRAY: Keeping down crime. That is the question.
Mr. SHORTT: Keeping down crime, yes, with the sense in which the schoolmaster keeps down crime, and the clergyman and the Sunday-school teacher. If you are to put that particular argument you have to carry it much further than the women police and you have to put on police fund for more than the women police. I gave my hon. Friend credit for a little more appreciation of the position; but the fact remains that in coming to the conclusion that we must save this £20,000—which is a conservative estimate —we are appreciating fully the work that the women police have done.
We are taking no step which would prevent our setting up, in a single month, the re-establishment of women police when we can afford it. There is not a single thing we have done which will prevent the women police being reestablished in the quickest possible way the moment we can afford it. You talk about a nucleus of the police women. There is certain work the police women do. We are going to ask certain of the police women to help us to do it. One or two of them, I am sorry—I cannot say by what influence—but there are one or two women who might have done it, who have definitely refused to help us. I do not know what influence has been behind it. I think, however, that we shall be able to persuade some of them, at any rate,
2344
who are trained, but you want trained women for certain things. We have some of the women police and we shall soon get others, and they will be a perfectly sound nucleus. Supposing to-morrow we found the state of the finances very different and we wanted to re-establish the force as it was with the same numbers t I am assured that in a month you could do the whole of your recruiting. Every recruit requires two months' training, and that is what we give them. In a month you can do your recruiting, in two months you have them all trained, and in three months you could have these women police on the streets.
Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Why change your policy if there is a chance of their coming back?
Mr. SHORTT: But there is no change of policy.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Government never change their policy!
Mr. SHORTT: We have changed no policy at all. We have never treated the women police as part of the police force for the purposes of safety. We have never allowed the women police to be on the streets without having a man somewhere handy. We have never treated them as anything but pure welfare work. We have never dreamed of leaving the women on the streets to keep order, to arrest a drunken man or woman. What we had to ask ourselves was this: Having regard to what the police fund had to do, having regard to what we have to pay to keep up the necessary number of men for the protection of the Metropolis, how are we to get the money and at the same time make the necessary reductions in expenditure? To keep a male force—
It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half-after Eleven o'Clock.

  GUATEMALA.
  GUATEMALA.
  PASSPORTS.
  PASSPORTS.
  ITALY AND TURKEY (AGREEMENT).
  ITALY AND TURKEY (AGREEMENT).
  BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).
EGYPT.
  PROHIBITED MEETINGS.
  PROHIBITED MEETINGS.
  ZAGHLOUL PASHA.
  ZAGHLOUL PASHA.
RUSSIA.
  TERRITORIAL WATERS.
  TERRITORIAL WATERS.
  CHILDREN (EMIGRATION TO ENGLAND).
  CHILDREN (EMIGRATION TO ENGLAND).
BUDGET.
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.
  INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.
  INDIRECT TAXATION.
  INDIRECT TAXATION.
  SPECIAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
  SPECIAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
  CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
  CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
  WAYS AND MEANS ADVANCES.
  WAYS AND MEANS ADVANCES.
  PALESTINE AND IRAQ.
  PALESTINE AND IRAQ.
  VOTE OF CREDIT ASSETS.
  VOTE OF CREDIT ASSETS.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PENSIONS).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PENSIONS).
  FOREIGN LOANS.
  FOREIGN LOANS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  GOVERNMENT TEXTILES (SALE).
  GOVERNMENT TEXTILES (SALE).
ROYAL NAVY.
  SCHOOLMASTERS.
  SCHOOLMASTERS.
  DOMINIONS (ASSISTANCE).
  DOMINIONS (ASSISTANCE).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (CONTRACTS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (CONTRACTS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  OFFICERS, ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  OFFICERS, ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  FUEL AND LIGHT ALLOWANCES.
  FUEL AND LIGHT ALLOWANCES.
HOUSING.
  CONSTRUCTION.
  CONSTRUCTION.
  SUBSIDISED HOUSES (SALE).
  SUBSIDISED HOUSES (SALE).
  ABERDARE.
  ABERDARE.
  SCHOOL OF HYGIENE (ROCKEFELLER GIFT).
  SCHOOL OF HYGIENE (ROCKEFELLER GIFT).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  ENGINEERING TRADE DISPUTE.
  ENGINEERING TRADE DISPUTE.
  TRADE DISPUTES (BENEFIT).
  TRADE DISPUTES (BENEFIT).
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  BUILDING TRADE, SHEFFIELD, ROTHERHAM AND BARNSUBY.
  BUILDING TRADE, SHEFFIELD, ROTHERHAM AND BARNSUBY.
  BENEFIT (P. HALFPENNY, GOVAN).
  BENEFIT (P. HALFPENNY, GOVAN).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WOMEN).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WOMEN).
  ORDNANCE SURVEY, SOUTHAMPTON (MR. E. E. WEBB).
  ORDNANCE SURVEY, SOUTHAMPTON (MR. E. E. WEBB).
  MILK IMPORTS.
  MILK IMPORTS.
INDIA.
  POLITICAL PRISONERS.
  POLITICAL PRISONERS.
  CIVIL SERVICR (PENSIONS).
  CIVIL SERVICR (PENSIONS).
  RAILWAY PASSENGER FARES.
  RAILWAY PASSENGER FARES.
  SWAZILAND.
  SWAZILAND.
  KENYA COLONY.
  KENYA COLONY.
  LAND PURCHASE, IRELAND.
  LAND PURCHASE, IRELAND.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).
  POSTAL SERVICES, WATLINGTON.
  POSTAL SERVICES, WATLINGTON.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed.
STAFFORDSHIRE ASYLUM BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

COMPENSATION (IRELAND) COMMISSION
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl, the First Commissioner of Works, a Question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether His Majesty's Government will at once lay on the Table the terms of reference to the Compensation (Ireland) Commission of which Lord Shaw of Dunfermline is to be Chairman, showing the nature of the eases which are to be reconsidered by the tribunal and the responsibility of His Majesty's Government and the Provisional Government respectively for the settlement of such claims. There are many of us in Ireland who regard with the greatest concern both the composition of the Commission and the actual items on which they are to decide, and we should be very glad to know at the earliest possible date whether His Majesty's Government can tell us what are the exact limitations of their authority.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, if my noble friend will refer to Item 28 of this morning's Votes and Proceedings he will see that the Warrant of Appointment has been laid on the Table. It is now in the hands of the printers, and I hope will be available for your Lordships in a very short time. It is rather a long document, dealing with the personnel, the nature and scope of the Inquiry, the award of compensation, witnesses,
314
evidence, inspection, reports, and so on. I hope it will be available to your Lordships quite soon.
THE EARL of MIDLETON: But there were certain statements made by Mr. Churchill, in another place, as to the liability of the respective Governments. Will those statements, or the essence of them, be shown in the Paper which it is proposed to lay?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: To tell the noble Earl the truth I have not read this document with great care, but I should imagine that the responsibility of the respective Governments would not be a matter referred to this Commission of three gentlemen. That clearly is independent of the inquiry they have to make. The responsibility of the respective Governments stands by itself.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the inquiry to be made in England or in Ireland?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should imagine in both countries, but certainly in Ireland.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Might I ask the noble Earl whether the terms of reference will be in the document to which he referred?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, under the scope of the Inquiry. The first page deals entirely with that as far as I can make out.

JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUILDFORD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill. The Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CARDIFF EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

WEST AFRICAN TRADE AND TAXATION.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT rose to draw attention to the Report of a Committee on Trade and Taxation for British West Africa, and to urge upon His Majesty's Government the importance of the immediate abolition of the Differential Duty on palm products in the Dependencies of West Africa.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now two years since we last discussed one portion of the question that I propose to bring before your Lordships this afternoon—namely, the Differential Duty on palm kernels. Prices were then still high, but the fall in prices was beginning. To-day I am going to deal with that question, but also with a wider question. The great depression of trade that has affected the whole world has affected West African produce particularly. There are many of our raw materials of industry to-day which, although their price has fallen very heavily from the figures of 1920, still stand at considerably more than they stood at before the war in 1914. But in regard to the main West African staples—palm kernels and cocoa, as well as timber and hides—the price in Liverpool is lower today than it was on the average for some years before the war. The price payable to the native, therefore, is immensely lower than it was; in fact, in regard to practically all the articles of produce which we import from West Africa, including palm oil and ground nuts, owing to the Export Duties and to the increased railway and other charges, the price that the natives can obtain for them is very much less than it was before the war. Also, the Import Duties in those countries have been largely increased and now stand at very high rates; so that the native is prejudiced doubly—he obtains less for what he has to sell, and he pays more for what he has to buy.
When compared with other British Colonies, and, particularly, with French and Belgian Colonies in West Africa, the position of the native in our Colonies today is indeed lamentable and calls for the earnest attention of the Government and of the House. The seriousness of the whole position impressed itself very much upon me in the course of my investigation of it during the last few days. The fall in prices and the depression of trade which that connotes are bad enough, but there is also great anxiety as to the financial position of these Colonies. There are two reasons
316
for that. There has been a profound change in the whole policy of those countries, owing to the prohibition of the import of "trade" spirits which took place in 1919, which was faithfully carried out by us but, until recently at any rate—and I am not quite sure what has happened recently—has not been carried out by France. The loss caused to the revenue by that prohibition of "trade" spirits was enormous, and these Export Duties were put on the main articles of produce in order to replace the loss that was caused by the abolition of the import of these "trade" spirits.
These Export Duties hamper trade and prevent recovery. In fact, it seems to me that a sort of vicious circle has been created there. The Export Duties which have been put on in order to make ends meet in finance kill the trade which is the real cause of the prosperity of these countries. Again, these Export Duties were imposed at a time of high prices and great prosperity in the Colonies. The Duties were made without any prevision of the inevitable depression that must follow a time of that kind and, being made at a time of prosperity, were synchronous with a period of high expenditure on work which had been delayed by the war. Schemes of development were at that time made extending over a period of years which were apparently justified then, but in the light of later events are quite unjustified. The whole position is an anxious if not alarming one, and to my mind the anxiety of the position is somewhat added to by the fact of our system of appointing Governors for five years. In times of prosperity Governors of these Colonies are so easily led to evolve schemes, the financial effects of which, if they do not happen to be successful, fall not upon them but upon their successors. I speak of the system in this case; I make no personal reference. In fact, with regard to the last Governor and the present Governor of Nigeria—I allude to Sir Frederick Lugard and Sir Hugh Clifford—both are remarkable for ability, energy, experience and prudence. But while they and others are men of the highest class, I say that the system is a rather dangerous one.
There is another factor in this case. For the last four or five years it has been far too much the practice for the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the time being—who ought to be sufficiently employed by

317
the affairs of 40,000,000 coloured people in our Crown Colonies and 15,000,000 whites and a great many coloured people in the Dominions—to be taken off his Colonial work to attend to other matters. Of the great ability of the present Colonial Secretary there can, of course, be no sort of doubt, and may I say how deeply I regret the illness from which, at the present time, he is suffering; but it is a misfortune that so much of his time has been taken up, as so much of Lord Milner's time was taken up, by subjects outside the work of the Colonial Office. The system seems to me to be bad for the Empire. It lowers the prestige, not of the man who holds the Office, but of the Office itself, in the eyes of the people of the Dominions and Colonies, and it makes one doubt whether the questions we are discussing to-day have had adequate personal attention from the holder of the Office for the time being.
In the case I am bringing before your Lordships to-day—the case of the general financial position of these Colonies—signs of financial difficulty were apparent about a year ago. They were so apparent that a Committee was appointed with Sir Hugh Clifford as the Chairman, which sat in October and November and made a unanimous Report in December. The terms of reference to that Committee are interesting, and I will read some extracts from them. They are asked to report with special reference to the adequacy or otherwise of the existing sources of income to meet the requirements of the Colonies and Protectorates concerned. They are asked to formulate recommendations designed, if possible, to widen the basis of taxation and to tap new sources of Revenue, and to submit any recommendations that the Committee may desire to formulate for the management of the financial affairs of the Colonies and Protectorates concerned that may enable them, in spite of the falling Revenue wherewith they are at present threatened, to finance the loans needed by them for essential public works. The whole meaning of that remit is to ask for suggestions as to new taxation, to suggest another turn of the screw, to increase the burdens of those Colonies "in spite of the falling Revenue wherewith they are at present threatened," and not to suggest economy.
At the very first meeting of that Committee the unofficial members passed the following Resolution:
318
"That the unofficial members of this Committee cannot usefully serve unless the terms of reference are extended so that they may consider and advise upon expenditure and the allocation of the same to capital or Revenue."
To that Mr. Churchill replied that the Secretary of State had never had any intention of appointing a Committee to inquire into the Government expenditure in West African Colonies, and saw no reason for doing so. It is true Mr. Churchill went on to state certain objections of substance to that particular Committee being a suitable committee for the purpose, but the fact remains that just at the time when the Government here had at last been driven to recognise that if they desired to reduce taxation they must reduce expenditure, and had appointed the Geddes Committee to advise them in regard to that question, this West African Committee was not allowed to examine expenditure, or, what is almost as important in West Africa, allocation between capital and Revenue.
It was a proverb in Cicero's day that thrift is a large revenue. This Report is shorn of half its value by the restrictions imposed upon the Committee. Its conclusions must be read in the light of the fact that they were excluded from examining expenditure in detail. Expenditure creeps in, however, in their conclusions. Whether in a spirit of irony, or, as I think was the case, owing to the broad necessities of the matter they had to deal with, the greater part of the recommendations lay stress upon the necessity to reduce expenditure. The direct reply to the invitation for suggestions as to widening the basis of taxation is curt and emphatic. The Committee say they are not prepared to put forward any proposals to widen the basis of taxation, but in paragraphs 183 to 187 of their Report most of the recommendations really deal with expenditure.
They say, in paragraphs 183 and 184:
"The Committee considers…that the Governments of Nigeria, the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone are to-day incurring expenditure in excess of the revenue which they have a reasonable prospect of obtaining from existing taxation.
The Committee is of opinion that the abnormal and, in a measure, the fictitious prosperity of these Colonies during 1919 and 1920, caused by the radical change in their fiscal systems, which had been worked by the sudden decision to prohibit the importation of 'trade' spirits, to be to some extent lost sight of by the Colonial Governments; and that this has led to the work of reconstruction…being undertaken by them on too lavish a scale, and with too great rapidity."

319
They go on to say that they are of opinion that it should be the dual object of the Governments concerned to submit their expenditure to drastic revision, and, when possible, to remit taxation. I might read a good many other extracts bearing out my point.
My remarks to-day are made in no spirit of hostility. It is very easy to be wise after the event, and I quite see how mistakes were made, but what I am anxious to know, above all, is whether the Government are taking the situation seriously now. They, who have the power, ought to insist on retrenchment and economy at the present time. I want to know whether they do really recognise the danger of the position of these Colonies; whether they recognise that the cost of marketing produce in French and Belgian Colonies is so much lower than in our own that that alone is a very serious danger to our British Colonies in West Africa; and whether they see that heavy Export Duties, plus Import Duties, and, in the case palm kernels plus a Differential Duty if the kernels are sent to foreign ports, may lead to permanent disaster. I want to know whether the Government do appreciate the necessity at all costs of getting out of the vicious circle in which these Colonies seem at present to be placed, and, if so, what they propose to do.
Up to the time of the war these Colonies were extraordinarily progressive and prosperous. The fifteen years before the war was a time of great general prosperity. During those fifteen years the exports of this country doubled, a most unprecedented thing in our financial history, but in regard to these Colonies the exports doubled in five years. From 1908 to 1913 they grew from £7,000,000 to £15,000,000, and the Revenue of the four Colonies taken together increased during those five years by 94 per cent. There were no Export Duties then, and I do not think there was any increase of Customs Duties, but on the whole Customs increased by 60 per cent. during those five years. I was at the Colonial Office at that period, and I remember how fascinating it was to watch the progress that these Colonies were making at that time.
The set-back that came at the beginning of the war, was soon recovered from, and after the war, when control of prices had been removed, there was a great boom in these Colonies. In 1920 exports from
320
Nigeria and the Gold Coast were more than twice what they were in 1913, and four or five times what they were in 1908. That was chiefly due to prices, the price of palm kernels being more than double what it is to-day. It was in this period that the prohibition of "trade" spirits took place, and these Export Duties were placed on cocoa, palm oil, kernels, ground nuts, coconuts, and on hides, skins, and timber. That policy could very well be borne at that time, for the native did not worry very much when he was getting £25 for his palm kernels as compared with £14 before the war. The Revenue also extended greatly at that time, and there was a surplus in Nigeria of £2,000,000 in 1920, and of £1,500,000 in the Gold Coast. Their system of finance is entirely different from that of this country. Surpluses are carried forward, and large sums are annually spent out of Revenue on permanent improvements.
Not unnaturally, at a time of great prosperity such as that, great schemes of improvement were made. Looking back we see, of course, the policy was wrong and short-sighted, but it was precisely the same policy that was at that time pursued in this country. Your Lordships often warned the Government during that period of the danger which they were running. Your Lordships foresaw that a lean time was coming, and now the lean time has come both here and in West Africa, and how lean it is in West Africa, I will, with your Lordships' permission, show. May I first say how greatly I regret the absence of Lord Leverhulme to-day. He is on his way to America. He desired to take part in this debate, and I am sorry that he is not in the country at the moment. May I also acknowledge my indebtedness to his son, Mr. Hulme Lever, for sending me some of the figures which I shall venture to give to your Lordships.
The price of palm kernels for some months has run between £18 and £18 10s. The average price for 1911 to 1913—I am giving the Liverpool prices—was £20 9s. 3d. I will now say what the native got then, and what he gets now. Taking the same price of £18 10 s., the cost of marketing including the Export Duty to-day is £10 6s. 6d. as compared with £6 9s. when there was no Export Duty before the war. The increase is £317 s. 6d. of which £2 0s. 6d. is due to the Duty and the cost of inspection and 13 s. 6d. to the extra railway

321
charges. Out of that total increase of £3 17 s. 6d., £3 0s. 3d. is due to the action of the Government. The maximum price payable to the native—I should explain that these figures apply to Ibadan, a place 120 miles from the coast—if nothing whatever is obtained by the merchant for doing the business, would be, to-day, about £8, and certainly not over £11 on the coast. Before the war that same native was getting £14 inland and over £16 on the coast, or would have got that had he obtained the maximum price.
Take the other side of the question. The natives who bring in palm kernels often buy cotton goods. The price of cotton goods is immensely higher to-day than before the war, but, in order to be well within the mark, I will take the increase at 50 per cent. The native gets £8, but he can only buy what £5 6s. 8d. would have bought before the war. Before the war he was getting £14. Therefore, for the same quantity of palm kernels which would have bought 100 yards of cotton cloth before the war he can only buy 35 yards 81 inches to-day. Is it any wonder that Lancashire trade is depressed, or that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been paid by West African merchants in order to cancel contracts made at high prices, because there is no demand?
If every other Colony was in this position it would not matter so much; but that is not the case. I am going to give some figures showing the cost of bringing kernels from Kinshasa to Matadi in the Congo, and the cost of bringing them from Ilorin to Lagos, in Nigeria. The rail freight in the Congo is £1 3s. 7d. at the present rate of exchange, and £4 18 s. 10 d. in Nigeria; and the whole cost works out, including Export Duty and inspection, at £7 10 s. 7d. in Nigeria against only £1 15 s. 3d. in the Congo. The railway rates on that particular railway in the Congo have been immensely reduced. Since April 24 they have dropped from 195 francs to 59 francs to-day. That is a privately owned railway, and it shows what is done where you have competition in private enterprise. In regard to the French Colonies it costs £2 5s. less to market kernels from the Cameroons to a European port, £3 4s. less from Dahomey and £2 18 s. less from the Ivory Coast. This means that our merchants can only afford to pay £8 to the native while Belgium can afford to pay £12 or £13 and the Frenchman £10 or £11. How can trade recover with such a
322
handicap as this? It is perfectly impossible. It is not recovering. The exports of palm kernels in 1921 were 50,000 tons clown, and the natives are beginning to be careless as to what they bring in. The position, in fact, is one of great gravity.
I take next the question of cocoa, the great export of the Gold Coast on which it is much more dependent than is Nigeria on palm kernels. It is a comparatively new industry and has grown up within times we can all remember. The average price from 1911 to 1913 was £53 10 s. Recently, the price in this country has varied between £38 and £45. The cost of bringing it from Coomassie—I am speaking of the cost in the Gold Coast, including the Export Duty—168 miles, with freight at 81 s. (or nearly 6d. per mile), is £13 15 s. 11 d. against £5 10 s. 11 d. before the war. Of the increase £4 13 s. 4d. is due to Duty and £1 8s. to the rail charges. In addition, there is the cost of bringing it home, which has increased from £5 7s. 8d. to £6 5s. 5d. The increase is much less in that case because the ocean freight has been enormously reduced. But there has been no attempt to reduce railway charges, and what has been done in the way of reducing railway charges in the Congo, and ocean charges under a system of private enterprise, is a striking example of the difference between private enterprise and the inelasticity and rigidity of Government management. The total charge for bringing this cocoa to-day is £20 ls. 4d. against £10 18 s. 7d. before the war. These prices leave the maximum payable to the native at Coomassie at £25 18 s. 8d. against £42 10 s. before the war.
The cocoa industry is already threatened by disease and habits of careless picking which some of the natives are adopting. Dirty and diseased pods in one district increased, between 1919 and 1920, from 38 per cent. to 82 per cent.; and the Agricultural Department Report for the Gold Coast in 1920 says that "unless farmers give attention to better cultivation the cocoa industry may be a thing of the past." That alone constitutes a grave danger to the Gold Coast, for the finances of the Colony entirely depend on cocoa.
I take shortly the case of mahogany, which pays an Export Duty of 2d. per cubic foot. It was estimated that the Duty would produce £16,000 per year. It appears to be on the whole a decreasing and not an increasing amount. The

323
demand is poor at the present time, and the maximum payable to the native for twenty logs of mahogany to-day is £50 7s. 8d. against £131 1s. 9d. before the war. Of that difference £13 6s. 8d. is due to Duty; and it represents a Duty of 25 per cent. on the maximum payable to the native. If an enemy were asked to devise means to kill trade I do not know what surer method he could adopt than this, and I ask the noble Duke who is to reply whether the Government is not able now to announce some concession in regard to this particular item of mahogany.
I come now to my last case, that of hides, which is far worse than any of the others. At the time when the Clifford Report was drafted figures were given which show that it cost about 5d.to bring hides to this market, and that only 2¼d. was left to pay to the native. I have had figures sent to me by Messrs. Lever Brothers giving an extract from a letter containing particulars of the sale of 11,000 hides, of an average weight of 15 lbs., which brought only from 3d. to 5d., and the cost of bringing these hides here is £39 15 s. 7d. per ton, as against £12 6s. 3d. before the war. Of the difference £18 13 s. 4d. is due to Duty and £1 14 s. 2d. to extra railway freight from Kano to the Coast. On the figures given in the Report, which shows 2¼d. payable to the natives, a strong recommendation is made that the specific Duty, if it remains specific, may be based upon an ad valorem calculation of 15 per cent. Seeing that prices have dropped since that time, and that the whole value is taken up by the cost of bringing hides here, surely some entirely different arrangement must be made, or this trade must entirely die out. None of these articles are monopolies. Palm kernels are not a monopoly, even as palm kernels, but if they were, copra is practically as useful for all purposes. The Duties to-day are, as regards cocoa, at least 18 per cent. upon what is payable to the native. They represent 25 per cent. on kernels and mahogany, and a far higher rate on hides.
I know of no similar case of crushing Export Duties upon the main articles of produce of any country in the world. You could not have such a system of finance here. You could not have it in India. Why have it there? In asking what the Government mean to do, I do not forget that the Committee reported that they are unable to recommend an immediate
324
reduction in these Export Duties, except, of course, in some matters of detail which I have mentioned. But I must remind your Lordships again that this Committee was debarred from discussing expenditure, and I maintain that it is not enough for the Government to wait on events regarding this matter. The Government cannot possibly contemplate with equanimity the retention of such crushing imposts as I have described. These, of course, are quite independent of the Differential Duty, to which I am coming. Either internal prices must be raised or the natives will cease to produce, and bankruptcy in the Colonies will result.
There are two possible methods of dealing with this matter. The first is a rigorous cutting down of expenditure in the Colonies in order to enable lower Duties to be imposed. If ever a Geddes Committee were needed, it is needed for these Colonies. I see that one has been appointed in India, and I do not see why there should not be another to go out to these Colonies and investigate upon the spot. I do ask what is being done, and what light the noble Duke can throw on the question of the instructions which I presume have been issued by the Government to cut down expenditure in Nigeria, the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone. If the noble Duke can give any information about the Estimates for 1922–23, I shall be most grateful.
I have one or two specific questions to ask about Gold Coast finance of which I have given him notice. I take the Gold Coast because, although the position of all the Colonies is serious, I think the position of the Gold Coast is the most alarming, because of the dangers to the cocoa trade and because of the enormous debt that has been incurred in that colony. With regard to the debt, I should like to know what the new £4,000,000 loan has been spent on, because I have not been able to obtain that information. The Public Debt of the Colony increased from £3,000,000 in December, 1919, to £7,300,000 in September, 1921, and I cannot find out how the money has been spent. I notice that the Government have been making desperate efforts in the Gold Coast to cut down expenditure, became in the speech delivered by the Governor on February 27 of this year, he speaks of the original Estimates for this year, 1922–23, showing a deficit of £350,000 on recurrent expenditure and £720,000 on extraordinary expenditure, a total deficit

325
of over a million. The cuts have brought down recurrent expenditure, leaving a favourable balance of £73,000, and the estimated extraordinary expenditure has been reduced from £720,000 to £300,000, but a final deficit remains of £228,000, which, of course, will be taken out of the balance which has accumulated in the Colony.
In these circumstances, I want to know what is going to be done about the much controverted scheme of improving Takoradi harbour. I understand that a scheme of a modified kind has been approved by the Government, which is to cost perhaps £1,500,000 or more. I want to know how much expenditure for that purpose has been approved by the Government, and whether they have considered in connection with it whether this improvement will be of much use without linking up the railways, and if so, how much will this linking up of the railways cost if the harbour is to be made effective. I also venture to ask the noble Duke if he can tell me if the projected new loan of £1,500,000—I forget whether it is for this year, or next year, or the year after—is really to be issued or not.
I come to another and a much more delicate matter. The second way of dealing with the very serious financial position of these Colonies is one that I should personally very much regret. It is a modification of the prohibition of "trade" spirits. It is only the action of France and the dire financial straits of these Colonies which compel me to venture to suggest such a possibility. The loss incurred by Nigeria on the prohibition of "trade" spirits was £897,000 in 1920, and that incurred by the Gold Coast in the same period was £361,000. These are very large figures. The history of the whole question is set out in Sir Hugh Clifford's Report, and I have no time to traverse it in detail, The facts were that at the time that Report was issued France was not carrying out the Convention of St. Germain, which was concluded in September, 1919, and the Report shows that in Dahomey in August, 1921, 123,000 imperial gallons of alcohol were introduced, and that in Togoland the restrictions, which were faithfully carried out whilst it was in British military occupation, were immediately relaxed when the French took our place. There is, of course, much smuggling up the creeks from any port like Porto Novo in Dahomey and there is much
326
expenditure caused by the efforts to combat this smuggling.
Above all, trade is being diverted from our own Colonies to the French Colonies because the natives take their produce to places where they can obtain these "trade" spirits. Over wide territories the benefits of prohibition are consequently nonexistent, or were non-existent, owing to the action of the French, who obtain a profit on the spirits and trade which really belongs to us. I heard recently that France has put prohibition in force with certain exceptions, and if the noble Duke will give us the latest information on that matter I shall be very grateful. Matters cannot remain as they were when the Clifford Report was issued. I admit that the whole question is an extremely difficult ethical question. How far are we entitled to enforce morality at the expense of the Colonies in a way which jeopardises the very trade upon which the prosperity of the Colonies depends—I mean by the imposition of an Export Duty? I cannot help seeing that this prohibition would not have been carried out in such a hurry if the collapse in prices could have been foreseen, and I hope that in regard to this very difficult matter, upon which I feel unable to express au very definite opinion, the noble Duke will be able to tell us what the mind of the Government is.
In conclusion—I apologise for detaining the House so long—I must say a few words on the Differential Duty on kernels. That Differential Duty, as your Lordships know, is £2 when the kernels are sent to any foreign port. It is in addition, of course, to the ordinary Duty of £2. The Committee on whose recommendation that Duty was imposed sat in 1915 and 1916. Mr. Bonar Law, who was then Colonial Secretary, accepted their Report and gave instructions that it should be carried out, in 1916, but owing to the opposition aroused in the Gold Coast it was not carried out at the time this Committee sat and reported. I must remind your Lordships that there was then no general Export Duty on kernels. There the matter rested until October, 1919, when the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, was Colonial Secretary. He then insisted on these Differential Duties being put into force by legislation passed in the Colonies, if necessary by the overriding official majority. That was the case in the Gold Coast, where it was passed against the unanimous vote of the minority of unofficial members. In

327
the debate in 1920 the noble Viscount rested his case for the defence on the assurances given to the crushing trade in this country, on the supposed benefits to the natives at the time these Duties were imposed, and on the then high price of the commodity. With regard to the benefit to the natives, I would refer your Lordships to the Report of Sir Hugh Clifford's Committee, which pricks that bubble once and for all. Paragraph 202 says the Duty has "restricted the market…not only theoretically but in actual practice." In Paragraph 208 the Committee says there is no reason for a Differential Duty on kernels when there is no similar Duty applied to copra. In Paragraph 209 the Committee says that in non-British West African Colonies there is no such Duty in force, and this fact places the producer of kernels in British Colonies at a certain disadvantage. In Paragraph 213 the Committee express the opinion definitely that this Duty is against the interests of the Colonies. As regards the high prices, on which Lord Milner defended his decision in 1920, they have now disappeared and prices are almost as low as when the Steel-Maitland Committee was appointed in 1915 to consider the matter.
Again, I say that defence to a certain extent was good in 1920. It did not matter to the natives, who thought £14 a high price before the war, if a Differential Duty were imposed, if they got £25, but it does matter now when the natives only get £8. Therefore those two defences go completely, and the only defence which seems to have any kind of bearing upon the case to-day is that of the assurances given to the crushing trade in this country. This Report, my Lords, was adopted by Mr. Bonar Law in 1916, and the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, in speaking in 1920, treated that adoption as an undertaking urbi et orbi that the Differential Duty would be imposed, because he said that on that adoption of the Report by Mr. Bonar Law certain manufacturers in this country had put down machinery for the crushing of kernels.
As to this machinery question, these manufacturers must have put down the machinery either before or after the adoption of the Report by Mr. Bonar Law. If it was before, it is clear that the adoption of the Report had no effect upon them, but if it was after the adoption of the Report, then the fact remains that Mr.
328
Bonar Law did not enforce this policy owing to the opposition of the Gold Coast, and the matter dropped, and it was not enforced by Lord Milner until 1919. What assurance was there in a policy which was proposed and not enforced? No case has been produced of new machinery having been put down on the strength of the adoption of this Report, and the trade as a whole is against the Duty at the present time. Besides, it is really rather a tall order for a Government which has gone back on its pledges with regard to agriculture in this country, to treat this vague and shadowy outline of policy, which was not enforced by the Colonial Secretary at the time, as a sacrosanct pledge.
But I take this question on broader grounds. If there had been a definite pledge given to the manufacturers, amounting to a contract, what of the other and much more sacred and permanent form of contract—our position as trustees for the natives of the Colonies? That is the principle which was solemnly accepted by Lord Milner in the debate in 1920, and I remind your Lordships that in the recommendations of Sir Hugh Clifford's Committee there is this, that "from the standpoint of the interests of the British West African Colonies the Committee is very strongly of opinion that an open and unrestricted market is unquestionably to their advantage." Furthermore, and I think this point is final and conclusive, the policy adopted by Mr. Bonar Law is not being carried out. It is a different policy which is being carried out. The policy was that the certificate of crushing of the kernels in this country was to be accepted. Instead of that the certificate which is now accepted is the landing certificate here. The man who has landed his kernels here is at liberty next day to ship them to Hamburg, and he very often does so, and therefore any profit now does not go to the Colony for whose sake the Duty was imposed, but to the merchants and shippers of this country.
I say, therefore, that the policy adopted by Mr. Bonar Law is not the policy which is being carried out to-day. The native is penalised, and the Colony does not get the benefit. The Clifford Report says that within two to three months, in the autumn of 1921, 20,000 tons were sent to Hamburg from this country, on not a ton of which was Export Duty levied. The

329
feeling of the Colonial Office, as expressed by Lord Milner, seemed to be that there would be something like a breach of faith, but I ask in all seriousness, are we not guilty of a breach of faith in maintaining a policy which benefits a few manufacturers and traders here and is so different from the original policy adopted by Mr. Bonar Law? That policy cannot be carried out, because you cannot earmark parcels without a system of manufacture in bond. Therefore, I think that this excuse of there being a moral undertaking falls to the ground, and I fail to understand why the Government's conscience is so tender with regard to a supposed undertaking to wealthy crushers here in this country and yet so elastic as regards the Colonies.
I hope I have said enough to convince the Government, but if there is any doubt left in their minds I would venture to make the suggestion that they should call the trade together and consult them as a whole on the wisdom of continuing a policy which I believe the Colonial Office recognises to be so prejudicial to the natives of the Colonies. After the Report of Sir Hugh Clifford's Committee this Duty cannot be continued without grave risk to the contentment of the Colonies, and I implore the Government to do away with this great injustice. It is far better to run the risk of a small outcry by a few manufacturers here, than for them to fail in their duty as trustees for the natives of West Africa.
EARL BUXTON: I think, my Lords, you will feel that my noble friend has done a public service in drawing attention to the general question of the taxation of the natives of West Africa, that the position there is too little known in this country, and that it is an advantage to them and an advantage to the Colonial Office and to the Government that these matters should receive discussion by Parliament here. It is shown that in many ways, unfortunately, at the present moment, these Colonies are suffering from heavy taxation, from heavy rates, and in other respects, but as far as I am concerned I wish to confine my remarks, which will be brief, to that part of the speech of my noble friend with which he concluded his observations; I mean the question of the abolition of the Differential Duty on palm products in the Dependencies of West Africa. All the taxation to which he has so far referred, with that exception, has been imposed with the object
330
of benefiting time different Colonies and the natives themselves, and, though some of them possibly have been of a mistaken character, the object was to benefit the natives and not other individuals. But this Differential Duty on palm kernels is, unfortunately, in a totally different category, because it has been imposed, not in order to benefit these particular Colonies or the natives inhabiting them, but with the object of securing exclusive rights to certain raw materials, irrespective of the interests of the producer, and to exclude competition.
My noble friend, I think very wisely, has not dealt with the matter from the point of view of Protection, or Free Trade, or Preference, and I certainly would not do so, because those are very controversial questions, and I would endeavour to obtain the assent of your Lordships to the repeal of these Duties on a principle on which I think there is no controversy. My noble friend referred to the attitude of the British Government in regard to these Colonies and Dependencies for which we are directly responsible—the Dominions, of course, are in a different category altogether. I do not think it is too much to say that for many years past it has been the pride of the British Empire, and to a certain extent, I think, the envy of other countries, that we have in no sense exploited these Colonies for our own purposes. We have not drawn revenue from them, and such matters as we have dealt with in connection with them have been designed to benefit the Colonies rather than the Mother Country. That policy has been based on the broad principle that the British Government, as representing the British people here, are trustees for those Colonies on behalf of the natives. In many ways we develop these Colonies: we introduce civilisation, and in some cases we have to protect the natives against themselves. My noble friend mentioned the case of the introduction of spirits, which some people might think was to the advantage of the natives, but in regard to which we think we must protect them against themselves.
It is difficult sometimes to draw the exact line where Imperial interests and the interests of the particular Colony come into conflict. But as regards this Differential Duty on palm products there is no difficulty about it. That was specifically imposed, not in the interests of the Colony and the

331
natives, but in the direct interests of certain traders and manufacturers. The admitted object was to divert the crushing industry from Germany and elsewhere to Great Britain, and the means adopted to secure that end was to obtain the exclusive rights to raw material, so that these kernels should be crushed in Great Britain. That is a very laudable object in itself in certain circumstances, and I have no desire whatever to impute any motives to these manufacturers and traders. They were perfectly entitled to take the line they have taken, but my point is that, if for Imperial purposes it is necessary to impose a Differential Duty of this sort, it is not to the advantage, but clearly to the disadvantage, of the particular Colony or Colonies and of the natives, and if it is done for an Imperial purpose it is the Imperial Government and the home country who ought to bear the burden and the brunt of any difficulties which may occur.
This proposal was founded on the Report of what is called the Steel-Maitland Committee which sat during the war, in 1916. That Report, while it advocated the advantages of the proposal, only made incidental reference to the question of the natives and how far they might possibly be injured by it. The Committee said that though they were rather doubtful as to how far the result of the Committee would be satisfactory, in any event it was worth taking the risk, whatever risk there might be. But that meant, as it has turned out, that it is not the manufacturers and traders of Great Britain who take the risks, but the producers in the Colony and the natives themselves. That proposal, made in 1916, was made professedly as a war measure, as noble Lords can see if they read the Report and the debate in the House of Commons.
I confess that, if I had been in England at the time, and the Government had proposed it for war purposes and on war grounds, I might have found it perfectly legitimate under the stress of war, although it might be altogether indefensible under ordinary conditions. And, indeed, I think it might have been defended then, if it was a practical measure, on the very ground on which I am now opposing it—namely, the interests of the natives—because, after all, the natives of these Colonies were as much concerned as we were in the success of Great Britain in the war, and anything which could be done to defeat the Germans
332
was as much in their interest as it was in ours. But the irony of the position is that this proposal, brought forward as a war measure by the Government of the day, brought before the House of Commons with a view to being carried, was finally dropped by them, either on the ground of the opposition to which my noble friend has referred, or because the blockade was sufficiently satisfactory to carry out the policy aimed at. And it was only after the Armistice—or shall I say after the General Election of 1918, which completely changed the political complexion of the House of Commons?—that this proposal was revived and forced on the Colonies. And I venture to think that, if it was a doubtful policy under war conditions, there is nothing to be said for it as a peace measure.
My noble friend has effectually dealt with the question of the interests of the natives. Whatever may be the merits of this policy, I do not think any one can possibly argue that it can be to the interests of the Colony or of the native producer that the market for his goods should be restricted, and that a Duty should be imposed which prevents his getting the world price, and which restricts his opportunities of trading. It is admitted, I believe, by everybody that an Export Duty of this sort, whatever may be its merits in other respects, falls on the producer, who is thereby injured.
That general view, I think, is strongly reinforced by two facts. The first, to which my noble friend did not refer, but which I think is very important, is that this Duty was strongly objected to by the Colonies themselves, on whom it was placed, by men of the standing of Sir Frederick Lugard, Sir Hugh Clifford and others—men whom I know very well in addition to their work—who would not be prejudiced against a measure but would look at it from the broad point of view. They are men who understand, and have been responsible for, these Colonies, and if they thought that this would be a possible advantage to the Colonies or the natives in any way undoubtedly they would have supported it and not opposed it. Unfortunately, their views did not prevail and these Duties were enforced against their will and against the will of the Colonies themselves.
The second fact, to which my noble friend has referred, is the very emphatic conclusion arrived at by this Committee

333
which reported the other day. It was a very representative Committee and its Report carefully sums up the pros and cons of both sides in a very fair and unprejudiced way. That Committee came emphatically to the conclusion that this Duty not only restricts the opportunities of the producers but leads, as my noble friend has pointed out, to a great deal of leakage of kernels which go abroad instead of coming to England, which means that the Colony loses all the benefit and the manufacturer does not gain any advantage. They emphatically condemn the continuation of this Duty, because, as they say, it unquestionably leads to restriction of the production of the kernels and is, therefore, greatly to the detriment of the natives.
Then we come to the question which, after all, is the material one, that of price. There again the Committee have gone very carefully into the question of how far this Duty has affected the price of kernels which, of course, has an important bearing on the question of production. I think there is no doubt, from the Report, that the artificial conditions which existed for some time after the war counterbalanced for the time being the super-added restrictions which were placed on this trade by the imposition of this double Duty. But the Committee are quite clear in their Report, as noble Lords will find in paragraph 201 and elsewhere, that while, during the continuance of those artificial conditions, the price in the controlled market was as high as elsewhere, since the trade has settled down the price is considerably lower, especially in Hamburg and in some of the foreign markets, than it is in the British markets. That means, of course, that the native consumer and the Colony are losing the benefit of the world price. They also say that not only did the ordinary Duty which was imposed affect the position, but that this super-added Duty has lately aggravated the position as to price and is seriously injuring the position of the natives.
That raises a very important point in regard to what the Government should do in this matter. In the debate in 1916 attention was drawn to the position of the natives, and Mr. Bonar Law, who represented the Government, stated definitely, in the course of his speech, that if it could be shown that they were being injured in any way by the imposition of this Duty
334
steps would have to be taken to redress the evil that had been done; and he repeated that pledge on more than one occasion. Unless the Government can show—and I think after the Report of the Committee it is impossible for them to do so—that the Colony, the natives, and the trade have been receiving as good a price in the English market as they could have obtained elsewhere, I must ask them how they are proposing to carry out the pledge which Mr. Bonar Law gave on their behalf a year or two ago.
My noble friend has referred to a difficulty which apparently weighs with the Government in dealing with this matter—I will not say in refusing to repeal because I hope we may have a satisfactory answer, but in dealing with it so far and not having repealed this Duty. It is alleged, I understand, that certain Government pledges were given to the manufacturers and others that the Duty would be imposed and that it would be continued for a certain number of years. My first observation on that is that Mr. Bonar Law's pledge to the Colony and the natives was the first pledge given in 1916, whatever other pledges were given later. Therefore, if a pledge has to be carried out it ought to be carried out not at the expense of the Colony but at the expense of the Imperial Government. The Committee definitely deny that any such undertaking was given and they give their reasons in chapter and verse. A few priorities were given, but they were soon refused because it was thought there was sufficient plant to meet all the requirements of the crushing industry. In spite of that, some new mills, or whatever is the proper term for these crushing plants, were erected.
What does that mean? It means that these manufacturers at their own risk were gambling on the continuation of the war, on the continuation of high prices and on such promises as they could obtain from the Government. We are told by the Committee that one of their arguments now is that they have been handicapped, or are handicapped by the high cost of erecting their mills and the general high cost of machinery, flat the world's milling capacity is greater than the necessity at the present moment, and, therefore, that they are not making a proper profit. It seems hard and contrary to the principle which I have ventured to lay down as to the relations between the Imperial Government

335
and these Colonies, that because these manufacturers happen to have made a bad forecast the producer on the West Coast should continue to have to pay that Export Duty in order to relieve those manufacturers of part of the burden.
I hope we may hear from the noble Duke who is to reply on behalf of the Government that, after consideration of the matter, they have seen their way to remove this Duty at a very early date. I should be sorry if they said that they must leave it on for a considerable additional period because of the position in which it will put the manufacturers if it is repealed at an early date. The worst of Duties of this description is that it is very much easier to put them on than to repeal them. Once you put them on you create a vested interest and you create claims, and promises are quoted. Experience shows that the longer you continue to allow them to exist the more difficult, instead of the more easy, does their abolition become in the end. I notice in the Report that the Committee say that one of the arguments for continuation is that a comparatively small trade in palm kernels and oil has been created, and is a very valuable thing, under present economic conditions. The longer you allow this Duty to continue this sort of subsidiary industries will be created, and they will be used as an argument against the abolition of the Duty in the end.
I see in another paragraph of the Report of the Committee a rather insidious proposal to the effect that they are handicapped in the matter of vegetable oils, and that it would be rather a good thing to put a Duty on in order to put them in the same position as the nuts. What I want to impress upon your Lordships is that it will not be easier, by delay, to abolish this Duty. The longer it goes on the more its tentacles will extend, and the more difficult it will be for the Government of the day to get rid of it. I venture to say, therefore, that the broad principle to which I have referred of the relationship between the home country and the Colonies remains, and that anything which departs from it is necessarily opposed to our general Colonial policy. If we have made a false step, that false step should be retraced, and if it can be shown that these manufacturers and others have a real claim to compensation founded on definite promises made by the Government, then I say that it is for the Imperial Government
336
to give that compensation, and to abolish at the earliest possible moment this Duty which cannot in any possible way be an advantage to the Colonies, but., so far as one can judge, is on every ground a disadvantage to them and their trade.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, in May, 1920, I had the honour of initiating a debate on this subject. Lord Emmott has dealt so fully with almost every point connected with this subject of the Differential Duty, the Spirit Duties, Cocoa Duties, and Palm Kernels and Copra Duties, that not many points are left to he covered. The noble Earl, Lord Buxton, also dealt with many aspects of the subject, and I wish to dot the i's and cross the t's. There are probably few in the House who will recall that debate of 1920. Lord Emmott will, of course, do so, and also the most reverend Primate, and possibly some others, but we live in times when events come so quickly that it is almost impossible to keep count of anything.
At the time of that debate Lord Milner was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I should like to quote what he said on that occasion.
"This is what my predecessor—not my immediate predecessor, but the then occupant of the Colonial Office—said in this Despatch of June 1, 1916, which was a Parliamentary Paper."—
He referred to Mr. Bonar Law.
"The imposition for a period of years of an Export Duty on palm kernels, to be remitted if the kernels are brought to the United Kingdom and crushed there."
The kernels were brought to the United Kingdom and the Jurgens Company started to crush them, and Van-den-Bergh's and Lever's are now crushing them. The worst of it is there are so many palm kernels in West Africa that those firms cannot crush them all, and the consequence is that instead of the native getting a proper price in a foreign market he has to pay two Duties, the Differential Duty and the Export Duty, and Jurgens, Van-den-Bergh's and Lever's cannot take the available kernels. I have been twice up and down the West Coast, and the last time I was there I stayed for sonic time in Calabar. I wonder if your Lordships realise that there are millions of tons of palm kernels lying on the ground that are never touched by anyone, and that the monkeys even cannot eat them. There is enough palm kernel oil, if it could

337
be got, to float the British Navy. Therefore I do not see why the natives should not pick up these kernels, and have the full benefit of the produce of their country.
I believe that Mr. Bonar Law said that this Ordinance was going to be put in force. It was not put in force till 1919, and I do not think it was put in force for the benefit of the manufacturers at all, but in order, as has been said, to beat the Germans, who had practically had all the crushing of these palm kernels in their hands. It was quite right to beat them in any way that we could; but now times are changed. The war is over long ago, and why on earth should we not revert to pre-war conditions, and let there be free trade for the natives in anything they like to produce. I should like to make another quotation from what Lord Milner said when he was acting for the Department and also for the Government. He said—
"Unless I misconceive the position, a Preferential Duty was imposed in order to give a start to a particular industry in this country, and it was never intended to maintain it longer than was requisite to achieve that object."
That was from a Cabinet Minister and one who was the Colonial Secretary at that time. Lord Milner is a man for whom I have the greatest respect, and I am sure that he had considered with the greatest care every word that he spoke.
The real effect of the continuation of these Differential Duties is that trade is hampered, and that the Revenue of the West Coast of Africa is being depleted. The policy of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, the man who of all others realised what the riches of the West Coast of Africa were, and who began building railways there and practically opened up the country, has not been carried out. How can you carry it out when you have no free trade, and when the natives cannot put their produce on the market in a proper manner? I know this Coast. I do not suppose it is the gem of our Empire, but there is every sort of raw product to be got there—minerals, palm oil, copra, gold, cocoa, and almost every sort of thing you can imagine. I admit it is unhealthy for the white man, but the time will probably come, though I shall not live to see it, when sanatoria will be established in the hills of the interior, to which people will be able to go to recover their health, as in India they now go to the hills.
I now wish to make a reference to the meeting of the Niger Company presided
338
over by Mr. Hulme Lever. What he said at that meeting I consider to be perfectly true. I know Mr. Hulme Lever, and I may say, incidentally, that I have no interest in either the Niger Company or in Lever Brothers. I admit that they are an enormous and rich corporation. They bought the Niger Company. They make most of the soaps that the inhabitants of the British Empire use. They have great power and their hand is over many markets. This is what Mr. Hulme Lever said at the meeting on February 23, 1922:
"Just as Import Duties are paid by the consumer, who in consequence thereof finds his cost of living artificially and unjustly raised, so it is equally true that all Export Duties are paid for by the producer in the country that adopts the shortsighted policy of imposing them and merely reduces the earnings of the native labourer and producer. What wonder that the native in British West Africa is becoming sullen and discontented and refusing to work to produce his native goods under unfair conditions."
I am talking about palm kernels which the native does not produce. He goes out and picks them up.
The Report of the Committee on Trade and Taxation, presided over by Sir Hugh Clifford, has been alluded to by Lord Emmett and Earl Buxton. Lord Emmott has quoted the paragraph 213. Let me read that paragraph again, as it is really most important. It says:—
"Judged, on the other hand, from the standpoint of the interests a the British West African Colonies, the Committee is very strongly of opinion that an open and unrestricted market is unquestionably to their best advantage and consider that there is no sufficient justification for the retention of the Differential Duty."
After that, what are the Government going to do? Are they going on with this extraordinary policy of allowing the Governors to spend exactly what they like? Lord Emmott has stated what the Gold Coast is spending and how much it is in debt. When they have good times they spend a great deal of money; when they have bad times they have to pay their debts. In addition to all this you are hampering the trade of the whole of the West Coast. These palm oil kernels come first to Liverpool. They are then passed on to Hamburg and sold at a good price. Who gets the benefit? No Englishman; no native. It is the foreigner who gets the benefit, and the result is that every one is disgusted. How would anyone like to be in a position of being able to pick up the produce of his own country and then be

339
told that he must pay for it; in fact, that he must pay two Duties for it?
I am glad to hear that the French have become a little more reasonable and have put a Preferential Duty on spirits that are sold to the natives. What is to prevent them getting as much spirit as they like? I know what the trade of the Gold Coast is. Merchandise has been passed along ever since the days of Egypt and Herodotus. You can get things passed along everywhere now, as you could centuries ago. If people want a thing they get it. People take great risks in order to make money; and if the native wants spirits he will pass it along. If there is none at Timbuctoo he will get it to Timbuetoo. Therefore, I am glad to hear that the French have come to some arrangement in this matter.
I admit that the finances of the Gold Coast and Nigeria are in a very serious condition. The Spirit Duty, one of the most important means of revenue, has been taken off, and the result is that the Preferential Duty, and the Duty on other products, has not brought in the amount of revenue that was expected. I do not quite agree that they are in the nature of a vested interest. The truth is that there are so many palm kernels to be got that they cannot be absorbed by the crushers in England or in any other part of the world. You could employ a million men and you would not pick them all up. I hope the Government will take off this Differential Duty, and the sooner the better. I have been in this House for many years. There was a time when the question of Colonial progress was not much talked about. It is a fine thing for the Empire that the products of the out-of-the-way parts of it should be discussed in this House by men who know, and who wish to see the British Empire become strong, powerful and rich.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, as I have just come back from Nigeria, perhaps the House will allow me, briefly, to say why I agree with Lord Emmott in his opinion that the time has come to abolish this Differential Duty on palm products. Before I come to that point I should like to allude to some of the observations of the noble Earl who has just sat down. He quoted from a speech of Mr. Hulme Lever in which he said that the West African native has become "sullen and discontented" because of the
340
extent of his taxation, and that for that reason he was no longer producing the natural products of the soil. I have great respect for Mr. Hulme Lever, whom I have the privilege of knowing, and I think that phrase must have escaped him in an unfortunate moment. I do not think there is any reasonable ground whatever for stating that the West African native has become "sullen and discontented," because of these particular Duties. Nor, so far as I could observe, is it at all true to state that he is sullen or discontented, and there is no reason that I know of why he should be.
What are the facts, and why is he not producing? My noble friend, alluding to the palm kernels, spoke as if he had nothing to do except to stoop down and pick up the kernels. That, I venture to say, is not quite an accurate statement of the case. It is true that he takes no part in producing. It is also true that nature has endowed Nigeria with the most amazing number of these oil palms; they extend over a vast tract of country in an imposing belt, and it is true that only a fraction of these palms are ever cropped at all. But I never saw him picking up the nuts from the ground. I understood that when the nuts fell to the ground they were already past their prime, and of no use for trade purposes. What he does is to go up the tree, and cut from the top of the tree the great bunches in which these nuts are found.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I admit the correction.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is what he is made to do, but that is not all, because two months ago I saw vast numbers of canoes coming down the different branches of the Niger laden with these same palm kernels. It is also true that the native is not collecting in anything like the quantity that he has collected in previous years. The reason for that, I suggest, has nothing whatever to do with any argument concerning Export Duties or Differential Duties, but is that the price which he is now offered, which we in this House, of course, know to depend to a certain extent on the Export Duties and the Differential Duties, bears such a very small proportion to the price he was getting two years ago, and naturally, to his unsophisticated mind, the sudden drop in prices is inexplicable. How should he understand the reasons for the world boom

341
and the world slump? I do not myself believe that if the Differential Duties were abolished to-morrow it would make the slightest difference to the present attitude of the native collector, because what staggers and discourages him is the enormous disproportion between the present prices, altogether apart from Export and Differential Duties, and the prices of two years ago.
Nor, if the duties are reasonable, is there, in my judgment, any injustice in charging such Duties for legitimate purposes of Revenue, because it is, I believe, literally true that the great majority of natives in this palm belt pay no direct taxes whatever. In the north and in the centre and west of Nigeria the natives are to a large extent directly as well as indirectly taxed, but the natives of the palm belt are not directly taxed, and consequently the only contribution they make to the Revenue is either in the Customs Duties, on the imports which they purchase, or in the diminution of the prices they would receive for the natural products they collect owing to the incidence of an Export Duty or a Differential Duty. While, therefore, I think it is of the utmost possible importance to see that these Export Duties are not too high and to reconsider the reasons for which the Differential Duty was introduced, I do not think that the mere fact of their existence is anything in the nature of an injustice to the native.
I cannot pass altogether without comment my noble friend's observation that the Governors were spending all they liked. This country is very fortunate in having in Sir Hugh Clifford, in Nigeria, one of the most capable and experienced men that ever governed a great British Dependency, and I cannot imagine a man of whom it would be more untrue to say that he was extravagant or reckless in his expenditure Sir Frederick Guggisberg on the Gold Coast is not a Governor of the same experience, but he is a man of the most gallant record, and I am quite sure that he would consider any suggestion that he was extravagant as a most unjust aspersion. The facts of the case are that in Nigeria and in the Gold Coast, as in Great Britain, there was a moment after the war when men thought that the boom was going to last, and when they did two things; they increased the ordinary scale of expenditure in the matter of establishments and salaries, and they took upon
342
themselves the obligation of some very important public works. I cannot imagine public works more important, if the Colonies could afford them, but to a very large extent the Governments are already committed both in the matter of harbours and of railways, and have raised their loans and have to pay the interest on those loans.
That is the reason why a man like Sir Hugh Clifford who, as I say, is as well equipped to deal with the financial problems of the moment as any man who ever held such an honourable office, finds himself confronted with great difficulties. He finds increased salaries; an increased establishment; great charges in connection with capital expenses, and, at the same moment, the full effects of the abolition of the "Trade" Spirit Duty. It would not be possible to make two ends meet at present without an Export Duty of sonic kind, but I am sure no man has considered more carefully than Sir Hugh Clifford whether these Export Duties can possibly be reduced, because they are in their essence an evil thing for the trade of the Colony. They must operate in the direction of a diminution of that trade, and a point may very easily come where, as a matter of fact, if the Duty were reduced the Revenue would be decreased.
This brings me, in conclusion, to the few words I have to say about the Differerential Duties. I was very sorry not to hear Lord Emmott's speech. I was detained, as I informed him, by an engagement which I could not put off, but I am sure that he dealt with the subject in that thorough manner which he always shows when he undertakes to introduce such a question as this. I am not going to consider now the reasons for which these Differential Duties were introduced. We might argue for many hours in this House about the general principles on which that act of the Government was based. Nor am I at this moment going to consider the effect of the abolition of those Duties on any industries which may have been established in England in consequence of their imposition, though I admit that that is a consideration which the Secretary of State for the Colonies is absolutely bound to remember. He must observe any pledges which his predecessors gave, and, if he departs from those pledges, he must, as my noble friend behind me said, ask Parliament to compensate those who may be injuriously affected thereby.

343
What I want to say is that I am perfectly certain, from close observation on the spot, that these Differential Duties are doing great harm to Nigeria and the Gold Coast, because they are turning the minds of Germany, particularly, more and more to the substitution of copra for palm kernels. Where that substitution is not easily or readily secured, what is happening is that instead of buying palm kernels in Nigeria, they are buying them from the French in Senegal or from the Belgians in the Congo, because neither the French nor the Belgians have put on the same Differential Duties against the Germans, and are therefore not depriving the Germans of these kernels or preventing them from competing with the British manufacturer, but are driving the Germans to buy them from the Belgians or from the French, instead of from British subjects. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Duke, in his reply, will be able to tell us that these Duties are going to be abolished.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, the subject that we have to discuss to-day is so wide that I hope you will pardon me if my statement is rather long. We have listened with great interest to the speeches of the noble Lords who have already spoken, and who are fully conversant with the Colonies, and more especially to that of the noble Earl who has spoken last, on account of the interesting personal information which he gave us regarding his visit to the Colony. I wish first of all to deal with the financial position of Nigeria, the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone, and after that I shall deal with the question of palm kernels.
The financial year of Nigeria runs from April 1. On December 31, 1921, the surplus of assets over liabilities was £1,328,254 and the Colony had over £2,000,000 on deposit or on easily realisable investments. The latest Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ended March 31, 1922 was:—Revenue, £4,557,401; Expenditure:—Recurrent, £5,286,000; Special and Extraordinary, £1,520,000; Loan Expenditure, £2,660,000; total Expenditure, £9,466,000. After allowing for refunds to Revenue from the proceeds of the loan of £3,000,000 raised last Autumn, which refunds are in respect of expenditure on loan works provisionally met from Revenue pending the raising of the loan, the balance on March 31, 1922, was estimated at £651,275.
344
The Revenue for 1922–23 was estimated at £4,721,000, but since then the ad valorem Import Duties have been raised from 12½ to 15 per cent., and the following included in the list of articles subject to the ad valorem rate:—Glassware, articles of brass, copper and iron manufacture, haberdashery, brooms and brushes, cordage, twine, candles, jewellery and plate, musical instruments, perfumery other than perfumed spirits, tobacco, pipes, prints and engravings, toys and games. A Duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem has also been imposed on corrugated iron sheets and a Duty of 15 per cent. ad valorem on provisions, which had hitherto been admitted free. The Revenue from these increased and additional Import Duties is expected to amount to about £150,000, so that the total estimated Revenue for 1922–23 may be put at about £4,874,000. The Expenditure for 1922–23 is estimated at:—Recurrent, £5,321,002; Special and Extraordinary, £671,855; total, £5,992,857.
The position caused by the sudden slump in both the import and export trade of Nigeria, coming at a time when the long period of stagnation in development due to the war had given place to a period of exceptional activity, and when the operation of the new post-war rates of salary which were forced upon the Colonial Government by the fall in the value of money, and the inability of officers to make both ends meet on the old rates of pay, was making itself felt, is no doubt serious, but the Colonial Government is doing everything possible to meet the situation without adopting panic measures, such as closing down works of development already begun, and, in many cases, half completed. The severity of the trade slump is such that it is only reasonable to hope that before the present financial year has expired, trade will be reviving. If it has not revived by the time the next year's Estimates are under consideration, further and more drastic measures will, of course, be necessary.
LORD EMMOTT: Will there be an actual deficit in 1923—an actual balance to the bad?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: Yes, a small one. Much of what appears as Revenue in the figures which have been quoted is not Tax Revenue. For instance, over £1,400,000 of the Revenue for 1922–23 is railway receipts and over £200,000 is for the transport and sale of coal from the

345
Government Colliery. The rate of taxation in Nigeria per head of the population is still low—much lower than in the other West African Colonies; and the loan expenditure which is going on is for railway and harbour works which are essential for the development of this vast country with its 335,000 square miles and some 16,000,000 of people.
Until the collapse in trade which occurred in 1921, the mercantile interests were continually complaining of serious delays in transportation of produce, etc., due to shortage of rolling stock and locomotives and to congestion at the ports caused by inadequate wharfage and warehouse accommodation, and urging immediate action to remedy them. The Nigerian Government, in order to meet the situation, embarked on a loan programme costing over £12,500,000 for the completion of the Nigerian Eastern Railway (thus giving two outlets by rail from the interior of the country), the improvement of the Lagos—Kano Railway and the provision of adequate terminal facilities at Lagos and Port Harcourt, and new railway workshops at Ebute Metta and Enugu. These works when completed will place Nigeria in a favourable position to deal with the largely increased traffic which will no doubt spring up as soon as trade improves, and it would be a mistaken and expensive policy not to go on with them.
Apart from this sanctioned programme, which must be completed, capital expenditure is being cut down as far as possible at present, and it is clear that the Colonial Government is exercising strict economy in ordinary expenditure. Of course, a Government cannot reduce its ordinary expenditure in the same way as a mercantile firm, since it is bound to carry on the government of the country, and cannot dismiss, or reduce the salaries of, its permanent servants as a mercantile firm can with its employees.
As regards the question, raised by Lord Emmott, of the Nigerian Export Duty on hides and skins, the recommendation of the Committee of which Sir Hugh Clifford was chairman is at present under consideration by the Nigerian Government, and their views have not yet reached us, but as Sir Hugh Clifford is Governor of Nigeria as well as Chairman of the Committee the House may be certain that full consideration will be given to this matter.
346
To turn to the financial position of the Gold Coast, the £4,000,000 loan of 1920 yielded £3,900,000. The estimated expenditure out of this up to April 1, 1923, is:—

£

Taso—Kumasi Railway

2,098,000

Sekondi—Kumasi Railway, relaying and deviations

1,295,000

Topographical survey

93,389

Takoradi Harbour

620,000

Survey for ditto

25,000

Accra Harbour

100,000

Survey for Central Province Railway

6,000

Total

£4,237,389

The balance of £237,389 will be met from surplus balances, which amounted on April 1, 1922, to £1,883,064. The Estimates for 1922–23 show a surplus of £143,000 of ordinary Revenue over ordinary Expenditure. Extraordinary Expenditure is estimated at £389,000, depleting pro tanto the surplus balance mentioned above. It is anticipated that the following year will show such a balance of Revenue over Expenditure as will enable a loan to be raised early in 1924, to defray the balance of the cost of the Takoradi harbour, say £1,000,000, and the cost of the projected Central Province Railway, of which no exact estimate can be framed pending survey, but which may be placed provisionally at £2,000,000.
In regard to Takoradi harbour the cost of the present reduced scheme is estimated at £1,600,000 only. This will perhaps not enable large ships to go alongside the port as the larger scheme would, but it will enable them to lie in sheltered water a hundred yards or so from the wall instead of half a mile out in the open sea. A railway is being surveyed in connection with the harbour to run through the Central Province for about one hundred miles. The cost of this is roughly estimated at £2,000,000. It is anticipated that like the existing railways it will pay from the start as well as bringing revenue to the harbour.
As regard current Revenue and Expenditure the Export Tax on cocoa does not appear to have injuriously affected the trade as, in spite of lower prices, the export at 133,000 tons was actually higher in 1921 than in 1920. As a result of the Committee on Taxation the Secretary of State telegraphed suggesting that the

347
Export Duty on timber should be removed, but the local Government was strongly opposed to this step as it was not the Duty that was killing the trade. The high prices have caused a large number of second-rate logs to be felled, which would be unsaleable even if the Duty were removed and therefore no advantage would be gained by removing the Duty. The maintenance of the Duty is strongly urged by the Forest Department in order to provide a check on the depletion of the forests which is a great danger to agriculture.
As regards the numbers of the European staff it must be admitted that there was a tendency, in consequence of the abounding prosperity of 1920, to increase the staff and salaries above what proved to be prudent in view of the capital commitments of the Colony. Economies are now being effected. The European staff as provided for the current year is eighty-six less than for last year. In particular, in the Public Works Department there is a net reduction of forty-three in the European staff, twenty-seven in the Native Staff, and £20,000 in the total expenditure on salaries.
I turn now to Sierra Leone. Owing to the great fall in price of the chief products the finances of Sierra Leone undoubtedly give cause for anxiety. The Revenue of 1921–22 fell short of the Expenditure by £350,000, reducing the balance of assets to £141,000. As soon as the fall of Revenue became probable a campaign of economy was set on foot, and the current Estimates are framed to produce a balance of ordinary Revenue over a total Expenditure of £13,000, Expenditure having been reduced by £160,000. Further economies are, however, being effected and special efforts are being made to develop the forestry and agricultural resources of the country.
The Government realise the importance of the situation, and I can assure the noble Lord that they also realise the importance of the interests of the natives and they will do all they can to improve the financial position. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said, the real causes of the West African financial difficulty are, firstly, world depression in trade which one day must surely revive, otherwise all our Colonies will be seriously affected; and, secondly, our philanthropic action in prohibiting import of "trade" spirits as arranged by the
348
Convention of St. Germain. I am glad to be able to assure your Lordships that the French are now arranging to carry out their part of the Agreement and that the Decree was issued at Dakar last December bringing into force the Presidential Decree of St. Germain.
Next, I come to the question of palm kernels. The question of the Differential Export Duty on British West African palm kernels is getting to have a Parliamentary history of very respectable length. Apart from a number of House of Commons Questions, the policy of the measure has been debated on the following occasions:—In the House of Commons on August 3, 1916, when Mr. Bonar Law, Secretary of State for the Colonies, replied for the Government; on December 17, 1919, in the House of Lords, on a Motion by Earl Beauchamp, the Government reply being in the hands of Lord Crawford; in the House of Lords on May 12, 1920, when the Earl of Mayo and Lord Emmett spoke against the Duty and Lord Milner replied.
The Duty is one of £2 a ton on all palm kernels exported from British West African Colonies and Protectorates and not landed at a port within the British Empire. It originated in a recommendation made in May, 1916, by a Committee on Edible and Oil Producing Nuts and Seeds, under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland. The African oil palm, which grows wild over a large area of West Africa, produces two articles of importance. The fleshy part of the fruit outside the stone produces palm oil which is used for soap-making and as a lubricant. The stone is cracked by the native women and children and the kernel inside is exported, and when crushed produces a pure edible oil, known as palm kernel oil, and the feeding cake for animals known as palm kernel cake. The palm kernel oil is very similar to cocoanut oil, and is practically interchangeable with cocoanut oil for all purposes. Cocoanut oil and palm kernel oil form the principal "hard oils" used in the manufacture of vegetable margarine. Such margarine is a mixture of a hard oil and a "soft oil," which is usually ground nut oil or cotton seed oil, though there are other soft oils available.
Before the war the margarine industry was not much developed in this country. Maypole's were the chief manufacturers of table margarine and a number of small firms manufactured a certain amount of

349
inferior margarine which was not used for table purposes but in the confectionery trades. The bulk of the margarine was made in Holland and the industry of crushing palm kernels to obtain palm kernel oil was centred in Germany in and near Hamburg, and the oil required by the Dutch manufacturers was sent largely in barges to Holland. Some of it was exported to this country. The crushing of oil seeds was an important industry in this country; but it was conducted more with a view to securing the requirements of the English farmer than those of the English margarine manufacturer.
Accordingly, oil seeds dealt with by the English oil seed crusher were chiefly linseed, cotton seed and other seeds with a comparatively low oil content; and the crushing of the richer oil nuts like copra and palm kernels was little developed. The English farmers preferred linseed or cotton seed cake to palm kernel cake for their animals, while on the other hand, in Germany, palm kernel cake was a popular feeding stuff which, it was claimed, improved the percentage of butter fat in cows' milk. It was also used in feeding pigs. The result of all this was that before the war the great bulk of the palm kernels exported from West Africa went to Germany to be crushed, and most of the oil seed crushers in Great Britain had little or no experience of crushing palm kernels. In 1913, of 234,208 tons of palm kernels exported from British West Africa no less than 181,305 tons went to Germany direct. About 2,000 tons went to France, about 6,000 tons to Holland, and about 35,000 tons were exported to the United Kingdom, of which probably a considerable part was re-exported to Germany to be crushed.
When the war broke out the British West African palm kernel trade was at once placed in a most difficult position. The German market was closed, few mills in the United Kingdom could deal properly with palm kernels, and the price of kernels went down from about £19 or £20 per ton at Lagos to about £9 per ton. Efforts were made by the mercantile houses to handle the West African trade, an appreciable proportion of which had been in the hand of German firms in West Africa which were now closed down, and Elder, Dempster & Company, who were of course largely interested in securing an outlet for an article which provided freight to an extent of well over 200,000 tons a year, interested themselves in securing a market
350
for the palm kernels in England. Owing largely to these efforts and to the great demand for margarine and for oil for the manufacture of glycerine for propellent explosives, seed crushers in England began to put up new machinery, or adapt their old, so as to enable them to deal with palm kernels.
Mr. Bonar Law, in June, 1915, appointed the Committee on Edible and Oil-Producing Nuts and Seeds which in May, 1916, recommended that a Duty of £2 per ton should be imposed on palm kernels exported from British Africa which were not crushed within the Empire, "the Duty to continue during the war and for five years afterwards." This recommendation was approved by Mr. Bonar Law in his Despatch of June 1, 1916, and in asking the Colonial Governments to cause the necessary legislation to carry it into effect to be drafted, he stated that it would be necessary to review the position again five years after the end of the war, in order to decide whether to maintain the Duty or not. As during the period from 1916 to 1919 the export of palm kernels from the British West African Colonies was restricted by means of export prohibitions and so, although no Differential Export Duty was enforced, they could not be exported to Germany, nor, except under licence, to Holland, it was not until the Treaty of Peace with Germany had been signed that it became necessary to bring the Differential Export Duty actually into force; but in August, 1919, Lord Milner decided to proceed with the measure.
In dealing with the arguments put forward against the Duty on the Gold Coast, Lord Milner stated that the publication of Mr. Bonar Law's Despatch of June 1, 1916, directing the introduction of the necessary legislation to impose the Duty, must be regarded as practically equivalent to a pledge to the manufacturers concerned, which must now be fulfilled. Nigeria and Sierra Leone had passed the necessary legislation without demur. Accordingly, the Differential Export Duty of £2 a ton on all palm kernels which were exported from British West Africa and not landed at a port within the Empire, was imposed in October, 1919, the Ordinances providing for its cessation after it had been in force for five years. The original recommendation of the Committee on Edible and Oil Producing Nuts and Seeds, that the exporter to be relieved of the Duty should have to prove that the

351
kernels had been crushed within the Empire, was abandoned owing to the difficulties of obtaining crushers' certificates, and a certificate of landing within the Empire was substituted for a certificate of crushing. It was found almost impossible to obtain a crusher's certificate and, therefore, the certificate of landing within the Empire was considered satisfactory in order to secure relief from the Duty.
The grounds on which this Differential Export Duty can be supported have practically narrowed themselves down to two. One is that it is imposed for a limited period for the good of the British West African Colonies, to ensure their having two markets instead of one competing for their produce, and to prevent the possibility of the repetition of the situation which they experienced in 1914, when they were cut off from their one market—namely, Germany. The other was that the crushers in this country were led to expect that they would have the benefit of a protective Duty of £2 a ton for five years from the expiration of the war, and that the removal of the Duty earlier would be more or less a breach of faith with them.
The objections to the Duty may be summarised as follows. I think these objections have already been dealt with, but the first is that so far as it is imposed for the benefit of the British West African Colonies, those Colonies do not believe that the measure is for their benefit and would prefer to be without it. Secondly, so far as the Duty is not imposed in order to benefit the British West African Colonies, but to benefit the crushers and margarine manufacturers in this country, it is urged that whatever may be the argument for the Colony giving preference to Great Britain by means of its Customs Duties, such preference ought to be a free gift from the Colony and not a measure forced upon it by His Majesty's Government, and that His Majesty's Government in its dealings with the Crown Colonies ought to be most careful not to use its powers to benefit interests in Great Britain at the expense of the inhabitants of the Colony.
As I have already stated, this question has been debated several times in Parliament from every point of view. Since the last debate, when Lord Milner upheld the Duty mainly on the ground that the Government was practically pledged to those who had to put their capital into the development of the kernel crushing
352
industry in this country, the position has altered in two respects. The price of palm kernels has fallen heavily, and it is now difficult to pay a price to the natives which will remunerate them adequately for their work in preparing the kernels for the market, and the whole policy of the Duty has been examined by the Committee on Trade and Taxation in British West Africa, of which Sir Hugh Clifford was Chairman, and which reported last December. The remarks of the Committee on this question will be found in paragraphs 190 to 213 of their Report. The Report of the Committee is before your Lordships, and I do not think I need go into it except to say that the Committee reported against the continuance of the Duty.
Although sympathising with the demand—and this, I think, is the pith of the answer—that the Differential Duty of £2 a ton on palm kernels should be abolished, His Majesty's Government feel that owing to the expectations that were held out to the crushing industry in this country both by Mr. Bonar Law's approval of the recommendations of the Oil Seeds Committee and by the passing of the Ordinances in 1919 imposing the Duty for five years by Lord Milner's direction, they are not now free to approve of the abolition of the Duty without first consulting with the crushing interests concerned. For this purpose representatives of those interests and other trades interested will be asked immediately to consult with the Colonial Office to ascertain if any way can be found to abolish this Duty without unfairly treating those interests.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I merely desire to touch upon the matter which has been last mentioned by the noble Duke without attempting to cover the ground of his general reply to the Question raised by my noble friend, Lord Emmott. The reply of the noble Duke on this Question of the Differential Duty imposed upon palm kernels will not, I fear, be thought entirely satisfactory by my noble friend, Lord Emmott, or by the other noble Lords who have supported his view in this particular matter. Like my noble friend, Lord Buxton, I am very glad that this particular question has not been argued on the old ground of the fiscal controversy as a contest between Free Trade views on the one side and Protectionist views on the other. But I think it is necessary to say that if it be the considered opinion of the country

353
that it is important to subsidise the crushing mills in this country because it is important that the margarine industry should be established here, that is a question for legitimate argument between those who favour the subsidising of particular industries and those, on the other hand, who desire to depend on free imports. If it be the considered conclusion of the country that this particular industry ought to be subsidised, so be it; but the person who must pay in that case is the British taxpayer; it must not be the African native.
The noble Duke did not really attempt to reply to the argument so plainly set out by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that as a matter of fact this particular Differential Duty is inflicting a sensible hardship upon the natives of two of the great West African Colonies. The noble Duke has told us that a conference is to take place between those who represent the crushing mills and His Majesty's Government in order to see what conclusion can be reached satisfying, I take it, the claims of those who are engaged in the industry. It is quite clear that those gentlemen will point, out that they were lured on, so to speak, to erect expensive crushing plants on what they conceived to be an understanding that they would have the benefit of this Duty until October, 1924, and that if the Duty is abolished before that date they will expect to receive compensation in some form or other.
I think His Majesty's Government when the conference takes place may be able to point out to them—at least some of us, I think, if we were conducting the conference would point out to them—that there is every probability, when October, 1924, comes, if the Duty is permitted to exist till then, that their demands for its further continuance will be even more insistent than they are at this moment, because in all probability they will not have been able to dominate the world market by then, and will maintain that they are still of the nature of an infant industry demanding support. We can hardly, I suppose, expect the noble Duke, or His Majesty's Government, to tell us whether, in any circumstances, compensation will be promised to these gentlemen if their claims for such compensation are admitted. I confess I wish that His Majesty's Government had seen their way to take a somewhat stronger line on this matter after the very convincing speeches
354
that have been made by noble Lords on both sides of the House, but, as it is, we are bound, I take it, to accept the conclusion which Majesty's Government has reached, though I cannot expect my noble friend, Lord Emmott, to regard that result with great satisfaction.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, the form of my Notice does not give me any right of reply, and I shall not make any comment on what the noble Duke has said, but I thank him very cordially for the amount of information he has given, and for the full way he has replied to the Questions told him that I was going to ask.

TAXATION IN KENYA COLONY AND UGANDA.
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP had given Notice to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the taxation of the native population and products in the Kenya Colony and in Uganda, and to its effect on trade with Great Britain. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret to have to inflict upon your Lordships a complaint very similar in character to that to which the House has just listened. My complaint is in regard to the condition of affairs on the other side of the African Continent, and, like Lord Emmott, I shall make my remarks in no hostile spirit whatever either to the Colonial Office, or to the local Administration. The Colonial Office and the local Administration have already done something to alleviate the situation which has arisen, probably from exactly the same causes as those which have produced the situation on the West Coast—the heavy expenditure and the heavy taxation.
They have appointed a local Committee of prominent citizens in the Kenya Colony to enquire into financial matters. That is one great step. Whether that Committee will meet with as much success as, or more or less success than, other Committees with which we are cognisant, remains to be seen. They have done another thing which we in this country would very much like to see approached here. They have abolished the Income Tax, which, I hope, may attract a stream of people from overtaxed countries to British East Africa. I do not think they will lose very much by having abolished the Income Tax, because I think that those persons and firms who paid it have been very few in number. They have also abolished the Export Tax on hides, but as

355
trade in East Africa and Uganda and the neighbouring territory in that commodity was as dead as the dodo they would not have raised any revenue if they had retained the Export Tax on hides, at all events not until that particular trade had revived.
They have also done another thing which is even more important. In the last fortnight they have reduced the direct taxation of the native by one-fourth. This is a very important step, and, if I may do so, I would congratulate the Colonial Office upon having done this. But I do not think it is enough. Even after this reduction the direct Taxes on the native are three times as heavy as they were before the war, and I should imagine that the local Administration have had some difficulty to collect even the reduced amount. I should think the arrears, or payments that will never be collected, are very considerable. The fourfold increase of the native taxation did enormous harm. It absolutely crippled the purchasing power of the natives, and consequently, as I will show later, made impossible the importation of European goods. In addition to the increase of direct taxation in 1921 the Import Duties were raised from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. ad valorem, and the railway rates in 1920 were raised 50 per cent. and in some cases 75 per cent. I know that Colonel Hammond, who was sent out to make a Report on the railways, recommended that certain surcharges and rates on the Uganda Railway should be largely reduced, but I am not certain how far those recommendations have been carried out or even if they have been carried out at all.
I will make my remarks as brief as possible, and will refer now to the Export Taxes. The only really serious complaint that I can make in this connection is with regard to the Export Tax on Uganda cotton. Uganda depends to a very large extent on her cotton crop for her Revenue. The history of Uganda cotton is very much to the credit of the Colonial Office, and the Uganda Administration. In 1904 the Uganda cotton crop was under 200 bales, and Uganda was receiving a large annual grant from Imperial funds. In 1914 the cotton crop had risen to 35,000 bales, and no Grant-in-Aid was required. It rose practically every year till 1921 when it was 70,000 to 75,000 bales. The Export Tax and the poor price, and, I admit, a certain amount of bad weather, caused the native to reduce his cotton planted area to a very great extent, and this year
356
(1922) the crop is estimated at only 25,000 bales, which I think is an outside figure. The Export Tax on cotton is ¾d. per lb. It does not sound very much, but it takes, I believe, rather more than 3 lbs. of raw cotton to produce 1 lb. of cotton. Without going further into figures, which are rather complicated, at the current price of American middling cotton this ¾d. per lb. amounts to about 16 per cent. Tax on the raw product that the native produces, which your Lordships will agree is somewhat hard. In 1921 the price of cotton in Liverpool and New York was considerably lower, and this ¾d. per lb. was equivalent to a Tax on native raw cotton of no less than 25 per cent. If cotton fell to a prewar level it might without any difficulty amount to a Tax of 30 or 40 per cent. on native raw cotton. That is a formidable figure. The result of this taxation, and no incentive to production, is very serious.
It has so crippled the purchasing power of the native that I should like to give a few figures as to the imports into Mombasa and Kilindini, the port for the Kenya Colony. I find that in 1913 bleached cotton goods were imported to the extent of 3,650,000 yards, while in the year ending December, 1921, the amount of bleached cotton goods was only 779,000 yards. Of unbleached cotton goods, in 1913 the amount was 22,400,000 yards, and in 1921, 11,737,000 yards, about half the amount. What is more, important to this country and to Lancashire is the import of printed and dyed cotton goods. In 1913 the import of printed cotton goods was 2,348,000 yards, and in 1921 less than a million yards. In 1913 the import of dyed goods was practically 3,000,000 yards, and in 1921 less than half that figure. I may say with a certain amount of confidence that the goods imported in 1921 were goods which were ordered at the end of 1919 or early in 1920 before the slump was felt. Most of these printed and dyed goods take a long time to manufacture, and if the imports of 1921 are analysed I think it will be found that a very large proportion were imported in the first months of 1921, and that the imports in the latter part of the year and in the early part of this year reached practically an infinitesimal amount.
With regard to the Export Tax on Uganda cotton for next year I suggest that in order to encourage the Uganda native to plant his cotton now—he plants in this month, June and July—His Majesty's Government should reduce or abolish

357
the Export Tax on cotton for 1923. If this Tax is reduced, or abolished, you will encourage the native to plant his crop, and you may get a crop next year of 50,000 or 70,000 bales. The Revenue of Uganda would benefit, the native would get more money, he would buy more goods, and your railway would also benefit by the carriage of the increased crop and the carriage of increased imports of manufactured goods. The more money a native has the more English goods he buys.
What is happening to-day, and what happened last year, owing to the poverty of the native? The native who used to dress himself and his wives in coloured cotton goods made in England, was unable to purchase those goods and was forced to buy far cheaper stuff made in America and India. The first people to feel the effect of the poverty of the native were the people of Lancashire, and the last people to feel its effect were the people in America and India who produced a cheaper class of goods. The poorer native could not even buy the American or the Indian goods, and he reverted to the primitive state. Instead of wearing cotton he wore skins. I do not think you would lose if you adopted my suggestion. You would encourage trade in Uganda, encourage business in East Africa, certainly make trade better in Lancashire and in India; and, as trade improvement in one country benefits another, if you improve the trade of America you would also reap the benefit.
Government Expenditure has risen. It was about £1,000,000 in 1914. The estimated Expenditure in 1921 was £2,371,000, and in 1922 it is just under £2,000,000. I understand, front an answer given in another place, that this last figure has been or is to be reduced. I sincerely hope it is.
I turn now to the Uganda Railway. It may be said that Uganda Railway affairs are somewhat outside the scope of the Question on the Paper, but I think that is not so, because the rates on the railway are paid by the producers and traders in the country. Although the finances of the railway are now kept quite separately from those of the Kenya Colony I understand from Colonel Hammond's Report that the financial situation of the railway is such that it has practically no cash, no depreciation fund, and no renewal fund; it will have to be financed by loans raised here, and the charges paid either by the population in the Kenya Colony or
358
here. It is no use referring to past mistakes. We who are interested in the country are concerned with increased efficiency and decreased expenditure.
Let me refer again to Colonel Hammond's Report with a view of trying to elicit what is in the mind of the Colonial Office. I should like to know if it is possible, something with regard to the question of fuel as wood is practically the only fuel used on the railway. Colonel Hammond in his Report says—
"The disadvantages of wood as a fuel are immense. Ten locomotives and 100 wagons are employed daily on fuel train duty. These trains occupy the main line for long periods while loading, restrict the capacity of the line and hamper traffic movement very much."
It is always pointed out that the money paid for wood remains in the country, but the railway pays to the Government an annual sum of £600 for re-afforestation. Colonel Hammond is apparently turning his mind to oil, and he says that the respective cost per 100 gross-ton-miles works out at 36·06 cents for oil and 40·76 cents for wood. I do not know whether these matters will be considered by the local committee or whether they will be considered simply by the Colonial Office, but I venture to think that any method by which rates and taxation can be reduced is worthy of serious attention.
There is another question concerning expenditure, and a method by which, I gather from Colonel Hammond's Report, it really could be reduced. I refer to the training of natives, in preference to the importation of practically the whole staff, outside the white men on the Uganda Railway, from India. The highest pay of a native motor car driver in Kenya is 60 florins a month, and the lowest pay of an Asiatic on the railway is practically double, that is, 112 florins a month, and if you take into consideration the charges the railway have to pay to their agents to obtain these Asiatics you will find that the cost is more than double. Colonel Hammond says:—
"The German railways in East Africa and the British administration of the railways in the Tanganyika Territory, which has only been in charge since April, 1919, both achieved, during their period of existence, far greater results in training and employing native staff than the Uganda Railway has in twenty years."
If you could develop that idea and train your natives instead of Asiatics the country would benefit, because when the time of the Asiatic has expired he generally returns to

359
India and takes all his cash with him, while if you train your native his money will stay in the country. He will become, we hope, prosperous and spend his money to some considerable extent on the purchase of goods made in this country.
I do not know whether I should be right in making any suggestions regarding the reduction of expenditure. I suppose it is no use going on saying that you must reduce taxation unless you can point out the possibility of further Taxes in another direction, which I think is a very bad principle, or what I believe to be the proper way of reducing expenditure. I think there are several ways by which the expenditure of the Government in these countries can be reduced. There is in Kenya a law called the Native Pass Law and I remember not very many years ago—I think Lord Crewe was then at the Colonial Office—I was one of those who urged the adoption of that law. I believe this law takes £50,000 a year to administer, and if the country is poor I venture to suggest that it is one of the laws which might be allowed to go by the board, or be held in abeyance until the country has more funds. In the Agricultural Departments we have a very considerable number of inspectors which may possibly be found to be too great. If you take the inspectors of flax, I cannot see their value. They grade the flax which is grown by the settler and it is then called Government graded flax. The merchants in London and the flax millers who purchase the flax take no notice whatever of Kenya Government grading. If the grading inspectors are of so little value they might possibly be put to some better use.
Then the Departments are probably overstaffed. All their salaries were raised during the war, quite rightly I think, because of the cost of living. In addition to that they were given a bonus of 50 per cent. on their salaries. These bonuses are now being reduced by 25 per cent., as has been done by probably every commercial firm in the country, and I think it is not unreasonable to ask whether the remaining 25 per cent. bonus might not also be cut off. I hope that these suggestions may be received in the spirit in which they are made. I do not wish to appear to be in any way hostile to the Colonial Office or the local Administration. All I want to see is the resumption of trade. We had a cataclysm in the two little countries of East Africa and Uganda during the slump
360
and no fewer than sixty firms went out of business altogether. It was astonishing to me, although I had known the country for a good many years, to learn that there were even sixty firms there who could go bankrupt. There is a little light now, but I hope the Colonial Office will not rest on their laurels and take up the Micawber-like attitude of waiting for something to turn up. They have begun the good work, and let us hope that they will continue it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, before the debate closes I should like to be allowed to say a very few words. I am glad that the subject which has been introduced by the noble Lord who has just sat down should have followed immediately upon the previous debate. The juxtaposition of the two brings out a point which I am quite sure needs emphasis outside, though it may perhaps be taken for granted and, therefore, hardly referred to within the walls of the House itself. We want everybody who reads or cares about our discussions to note that we recognise to the full the principle that our primary object in the whole of these matters, our sole justification for the place that we hold in Africa, is the benefit of the people, of those men and women to whom the land, the trees and the rest to which we have been referring really belong. It is their affair, and our business is, as a great trust, to help them to make more of the land which is theirs. That is alike the explanation and the justification of our being there. In this House these things hardly need saying because every one, and especially those who have spoken to-night from a wealth of knowledge about these different countries, take it as a matter of course, and know for certain that, to use a vulgar expression, that is what we are after in being there.
But it is not so outside. A great many people imagine that what we are thinking of now—as was, I am afraid, the case a generation or two ago—is simply how our administration of those overseas territories is going to profit our own home interests and trade, rather than how it will promote the upbuilding or civilisation of the peoples to whom we go. When we discussed a similar matter in 1919, the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, on behalf of the Government, with perfect courtesy and with great dignity, remonstrated with me for a reference which I had made, in the course of

361
the debate, to the problems which were before us at the time when the great Congo discussions were in progress nine or ten years before, and more in sorrow than in anger, shall I say, he remonstrated with me for seeming to suggest that our action then was similar to the action which at the time of the Congo discussions we were unanimous in condemning. I had no idea of drawing any comparison between our work to-day and the work which was going on in the Congo during a time now happily past.
The principle, however, remains the same. What we cared about then, when we made our protests with regard to the Congo wrongdoings, was first and foremost that these people to whom the land primarily belongs should not be exploited for the good of the world outside. I am glad, therefore, that we have this opportunity of discussing these things here and now. This principle must lie at the very basis of everything that we do, and I am particularly glad that in a discussion which naturally turns somewhat upon European trade and profits, we should have been brought back, by the discussion which immediately followed, to think of the natives and of the gain which we wished to bring to them in the trust which we hold on their behalf. Since those days to which I have alluded we have had emphasis thrown again and again upon the Mandate given by the League of Nations to those Powers to whom the trust is given of being the mandatories of particular regions—the trust which belongs to us as a people for the training up and improvement of the child races, the backward races of the world.
What I am anxious about is that before these debates close a reminder should go out that that purpose lies at the root of our thoughts, and of all the speeches which have been delivered. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen a book published within the last week or so by Professor Albert Schweitzer, who is now working as a missionary in Africa. Beginning as one of the greatest theologians of the day, he became one of the great musicians of the day, and then he studied as a doctor and acquired a great reputation. Now he is giving his great attainments to the service of these people in Central Africa. If anybody reads his book, "The Edge of the Primeval Forest," he will find great new ideas given to us by a great thinker, who, without mawkishness or sentiment of any kind, brings out
362
the way in which their races and ours, when they come into contact, can be of mutual advantage one to another. What I desire to do to-night, in these few sentences, is to emphasise the need of everybody understanding that these are the thoughts for which we care, and that these are the principles on which our action as a nation is based—that we desire to promote in every way we can the well-being and uplifting of the peoples with whom we have to do, either in East or in West Africa.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, before the noble Duke replies to my noble friend, although I do not pretend to have the knowledge of East Africa which he has, may I say that I think he has done very useful service in bringing forward the aspects of the question discussed by Lord Emmott as they affect our position on the Eastern side of the African Continent. It seems to me that the problems are even more difficult on the Eastern side than they are on the Western side, and that the financial position of the Government in the East is much worse than that of the Government in the West, that the railways are in a worse condition, and the native is much more severely taxed. Certainly nothing whatever can be said in respect of the native on the West Coast which cannot be said with regard to the native on the East Coast. Their taxation has been increased, I understand, by 75 per cent.
LORD HINDLIP: It has increased fourfold, and now is being reduced to threefold. It was four, and then sixteen, and now it has been reduced to twelve.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Surely the cause is the same both in the East and in the West, and that is that the Government and the Colonial Office had an undue optimism with regard to the future in the boom time, and that when the great world slump came these unfortunate Colonies were overwhelmed to an even greater extent than we have been at home. The surest source of revival, both in the East and the West, would be the revival of the world's trade, which will create a demand for the products of these regions, and enable the natives of the East and the West to buy Manchester goods and other imports of this country.
My noble friend touched upon two points to which I wish to draw the special attention

363
of the noble Duke. He alluded to the fact that the Export Duties had absolutely killed the hide and skin business of East Africa. I am afraid that exactly the same is true in West Africa. I do not think it would be true to say that the trade in fine skins is killed—I understand that the finer skins are goat skins—but the hide trade has been absolutely killed by the Export Duties. I submit for the consideration of the Colonial Office that it is of no use for the Government to impose a Duty which produces no revenue, and they might get a larger revenue from a smaller Duty which did not kill the home trade. The tanning and leather trade of the world being in a parlous condition, the Duties in East and West Africa have stopped any chance of these Colonies participating in any demand which still exists for their products in hides and skins.
Another point mentioned was the fact of the existence of Indian engine drivers and firemen on the East African railway. I was very surprised to gather from the noble Lord that they were not using African engine drivers and firemen, because I can testify from my own recent experience on the West Coast that Indians never were used. Englishmen, of course, were in the first place used, but they have now almost entirely disappeared, and almost the whole of the engine work on the West Coast is done by native Africans, not by imported Indians, and I should have thought that what was possible on the West Coast would be equally possible on the East Coast.
I should not like to sit down without making some allusion to what the most rev. Primate has just said about the sphere of our responsibility in East and West Africa. All your Lordships would entirely endorse the principles which he has laid down, but I am sure he will be glad to hear, and the House will be glad to hear, that in the course of my little experience in connection with the Empire I never came across Governments more thoroughly imbued with that sense of responsibility or a more general recognition of the rights of the natives than those I found on the West Coast of Africa.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, we have listened with much interest to the speech of the noble Lord who raised this question to-day, and also to the observations of the most rev. Primate,
364
who dealt very forcibly with the question of the well-being of the natives under our control. I can assure him that His Majesty's Government, as I feel sure he knows, fully realise their responsibility for the well-being of the vast millions of natives under their control. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, alluded to the same matter in a rather different way, and we are glad to hear from him that, wherever he has been in every part of the world, he has always found a full acknowledgment of the care with which the home Government watches over the interests of the native populations.
I am glad that the noble Lord has brought forward this subject to-day. The question is one of the most important connected with East Africa with which the Government is called upon to deal. The problem is not confined to Kenya or Uganda, but is common to all the tropical African Dependencies alike. It is, in one aspect or another, constantly before my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I am glad to have an opportunity of expressing his views in your Lordships' House.
What are the facts with regard to taxation in the two countries mentioned by the noble Lord? The chief sources of Revenue, both in Kenya and Uganda are (1) the Customs, (2) the Native Hut and Poll Tax. In Kenya, out of a total Revenue of £1,952,876 the first produces £516,972, and the second £656,070. In Uganda, out of a total Revenue of £845,109 the first produces £165,828 and the second £407,102. I am referring to the 1922 Estimates in each case. In Kenya there is in addition an Income Tax which it is now reported is to be abolished, but which is estimated to bring in this year £141,442; and in Uganda there are various Duties connected with the cotton industry which are estimated to bring in about £60,000. There are, besides, other sources of Revenue, e.g. Game Licences, Traders' Licences, Stamp Duties, etc., but these are, individually, unimportant as compared with the sources of revenue already mentioned.
Of the two main sources of Revenue, while the Hut and Poll Tax is, of course, paid by the natives, the Customs Duties are in the main paid by the non-natives, and it is the aim of the Government, so far as it is practicable, to preserve a proper balance between the two. Now, it is true that as compared with before the war, we have, roughly speaking, doubled the rate

365
of Customs Duties, and that there has also been a considerable increase in native taxation, but this increase of taxation is one of the inevitable consequences of the war. It is not only in Europe that the war has necessitated a great increase of budgets. The rise in prices and the general increase in the cost of administration has affected tropical Africa just as much as it has this country. The increase in the cost of administration must be met, and it can only be met by an all-round increase of taxation. That increase is, no doubt, uncomfortably heavy on all classes of the community, but I venture to think that if taxation in this country had increased in proportion as little as it has in East Africa, noble Lords would consider that they had every reason to congratulate themselves.
At the present time it is really useless for anyone to propose reduction of any particular Tax unless he can suggest some alternative means of raising the Revenue required, or some economy in administration which will render the reduction possible. The only other alternative is an Imperial Grant-in-Aid, and I do not think that this is a proposal which at the present time could be placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer with any prospect of success. What we have to try to do is to cut down expenditure generally, so far as this is possible without impairing the vital interests of the community, and to consider whether some alteration of the incidence of taxation is possible so as to secure an adequate Revenue with less injury to trade.
In Kenya the Governor, Sir E. Northey, has appointed a strong Committee with the object of making recommendations as to what steps are immediately possible in the directions I have indicated. In Uganda also a searching examination of the Estimates has been made by the Governor, Sir R. Coryndon, since his return, with a view to cutting down expenditure. In particular, he has under his careful consideration whether any revision or reduction of the Duties in connection with the cotton industry is possible for the purpose of giving relief to that industry. Both Governors are fully alive to the necessities of the situation, and may be relied upon to effect every economy possible.
As one of the first results of the recommendations made to the Governor of Kenya by the Committee I have just mentioned, I am glad to be able to announce that the Governor has proposed the reduction
366
of the Hut Tax this year from 16 s. to 12 s., and that the Secretary of State has telegraphed his approval of this recommendation. But while I fully admit the desirability of reducing native taxation, and am sincerely glad that some reduction has been found possible, it would be incorrect to attribute the set-back in native industry in East Africa entirely to high taxation. That set-back exists, but is due to the glut in markets, falling prices and general trade depression. High taxation may be a factor, but in my opinion it is not the determining factor, as to a certain extent taxation of the individual should act as a stimulus to effort. I may observe that in Uganda the increase of the Poll Tax from 5 rupees to 7½ rupees was announced in December, 1918, but this did not prevent the native cotton growers from planting a record acreage in the spring of 1920.
Further, in considering the amount of native taxation in Kenya, it should be observed that the position as regards the taxation of the natives in that Colony is very different from what it is, say, in Nigeria, where there are local native treasuries, and where the Taxes paid by the native to the Central Government do not represent the total amount of taxation which he is called upon to pay. The position in Kenya, owing to historical causes which I need not detail to-day, is very different. There the white administrative officer is the sole collector of Tax, and the Hut Tax of 16 s., now reduced to 12 s., is the sole amount which the native is called upon to pay. So much for the reduction of native taxation.
As regards the other chief source of Revenue, the Customs, though I fear I cannot hold out any hope that in present financial circumstances any large reduction of Customs Duties may be practicable, yet I trust that it may be possible to substitute for the present rough-and-ready ad valorem system a more scientific system of specific Duties which, by differentiation between articles in accordance with their importance to the trade and industry of the country, may do something to reduce the burden which is at present imposed. But we have not only to reduce the burden of native taxation so far as it may press unduly on the native. We have also to increase the provision for native services, for education, for agricultural training, for medical work in the Reserves. We have to take all steps possible to foster native

367
industries and to encourage native production. This policy of education and betterment, besides being the only one compatible with our trusteeship for the natives, is in the long run the one best calculated to promote the commercial prosperity of the country. It both stimulates the native's wants and affords him the opportunity of satisfying them.
In this respect the native of Uganda has at present the advantage over Kenya. In Uganda, we have found a staple industry for the natives in the shape of cotton growing, and, though the cotton industry has received a temporary set-back owing to the general world depression, I trust that this is merely a passing phase, and that a larger and larger amount the cotton required for the Empire will be grown by the natives of Uganda. In Kenya, so far, we have not been so fortunate in establishing native industries, but I do not think that the fault can be laid to the charge of the Kenya Government. During the early days of the Administration the Government was constantly crippled by lack of funds. So long as the system of Imperial Grants-in-Aid continued, it was impossible to set aside any large sums for native development or to inaugurate any organised scheme. But in spite of financial handicaps, experiments were being made with cotton in Kavirondo, and with other crops in other parts, which by this time might have proved successful. But at that moment the war came, gathering East Africa into the general turmoil, and for five years the whole energies of the Administration had to be devoted to the task of conquering the Germans in East Africa.
When the war was ended pressing postwar problems of various kinds, including the settlement on the land of ex-Service officers and men, left little opportunity for the consideration of other problems, however important they might be. Then came the trade depression which affected East Africa as severely as any other part of the world, and it is only now, when, as we hope, trade is beginning to improve and things are beginning to get back to the normal, that we are able to give to these questions the time and thought which they deserve. The latest Report of the Kenya Department of Agriculture shows the steps that are already being taken to improve native agricultural production.
The problem in Kenya presents peculiar difficulties. The development of Kenya,
368
especially since the war, has largely gone on the lines of the employment of natives by European settlers, due in great measure to the fact to which I have already alluded, that there is no staple industry for the natives. But if the native and the country generally is to progress it is essential that he should also become a producer on his own account, as he is in Uganda and other parts of tropical Africa. The Report of the Native Labour Bureau Commission, which has just been published, draws attention to the importance of the introduction of improved methods of cultivation, house building, and afforestation in the Native Reserves, and the Governor has expressed himself as entirely of the same mind as the Commission on this subject. Nor need the encouragement of native production necessarily mean any serious subtraction from the European labour supply.
Every one who has knowledge of East Africa knows that in the past the most economical use of native labour has not been made. Experiments are now being made by means of instituting a system of piece work, and in other ways, to effect economy in the use of such labour by offering a larger reward for better work. This, undoubtedly, is a step in the right direction, for, until the native is given an opportunity of earning better wages in return for a better output of work, one labour expect him to come forward to cannot in increasing numbers. In the present state of the industry of the country it is probably true that higher wages cannot be afforded, but as trade improves wages are bound to rise, and in its turn this rise of wages will have the effect of improving the labour supply, of restricting wasteful employment, and of leading to labour-saving methods and the more general use of machinery. At first sight the interests of the Europeans and natives in this matter appear divergent, but in my opinion the divergence is apparent rather than real, and I am far from being without hope that a way will be found of effecting a harmony between the two.
With regard to the references which the noble Lord has made to Colonel Hammond's Report on the railways of East Africa, I fear I can only say that Colonel Hammond's recommendations are now engaging the most careful consideration of the local Government and until the views of the local Government have been received it would be premature for me to make any

369
statement with regard to them. The training of natives as engine-drivers, the use of oil instead of wood as fuel for the locomotives, and other matters have been mentioned, all of which will be put before the local Government when they consider the Report and, no doubt, we shall hear from them what they desire to recommend. But the noble Lord may rest assured that when the time comes for the points to which he has referred to be considered by the Secretary of State, the observations which he has made with regard to them will receive the most careful attention. The noble Lord referred to locomotives, and we are contemplating having the new locomotives now being ordered fitted for burning oil fuel; so that if and when it is decided later on to burn oil instead of wood the change may be effected as easily and as expeditiously as possible.
I trust I have said sufficient to show that the Government are fully alive to the importance of the question which forms the subject of the Notice of the noble Lord to-day. Steps have already been taken to effect economies in administration and to reduce taxation, and I trust that further steps may be practicable in the near future which, by increasing the sums available for native services, will encourage native development and production, and will make for the greater welfare, progress and prosperity of East Africa generally.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I think your Lordships must be satisfied with the reply which the noble Duke has given to both Questions, especially to that which we have just been discussing, I heard with sympathy and gratitude the statement of the most rev. Primate in which he urged that too much could not be done in order to convince the outside public of the fact that the first object of British statesmanship in connection with the administration of our Colonial possessions, is the welfare of the native and the development of his territory in his own interest. That is a view which, as the most rev. Primate said, is not too widely held outside, and it is one which ought to be driven home because it is the fact. As an ex-Secretary of State for the Colonies I know that it is the policy which always has been, and is now, ever present to the minds of those who are charged with the administration of our Colonies, whether Ministers in Downing Street or those devoted and
370
able men who from time to time administer our possessions in different parts of the world.
Through one or two of the speeches to which your Lordships have listened this afternoon there seemed to run an undue note of pessimism. Certainly all the information which reaches me confirms the view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, whose speech I heard with great gratification—namely, that the native himself is not so depressed and downhearted as some of your Lordships appear to think he is. No doubt he is not able to appreciate the reason which has led to the fall in prices, but after all that from which he is suffering is that from which the world is suffering. As my noble friend, Lord Hindlip, admitted, the world is suffering from the effects of the great war, the depression which has followed it, and serious interruptions in the ordinary flow of trade. It is only in a return to better trade and better conditions that we shall find the solution of the most difficult of these problems with which we are now confronted. I fully share the view of my noble friend, Lord Hindlip, that the utmost care must be taken to see that the natives are not unduly burdened with taxation and it is certainly the duty of every administrator, whether at home or in the Colonies, to secure all the economies that can be secured.
I know in these days it is the fashion to say that Ministers of the Crown do not care how much they spend, and do not seek economy. These bad times are very trying to the nerves of all of us, and I dare say it is an extremely good thing that Cabinets exist in order that men who are suffering under the depression of the moment may have somebody to abuse and to kick. My own limited experience suggests that everybody except the wildest idiot is doing his utmost, whether he be an administrator of the State or an administrator only of his own small affairs, to effect economy, and, if he possibly can, to increase revenue. It has been clearly shown by the noble Duke, in his interesting statement this afternoon, that is the policy of the Colonial Office and of the Government, and I think we ought to contratulate ourselves that these efforts are being made so strenuously, and that they are really trying to help forward the return of better times.
The two debates to which we have listened to-day, if I may respectfully say

371
so, have been of the greatest possible interest, and I hope that the affairs of our great Overseas Dominions and Crown Colonies may come more often under the notice of your Lordships' House. If we had the money the Colonial Office would have a very different record to show. We want money to develop all our Colonial possessions, and, failing that, all we can do is to pursue the policy that has, to my certain knowledge, been pursued—namely, that of securing not only the development of the territories themselves, but attracting to both countries people with capital, so that the countries may be developed in the interests of all concerned, but first and foremost in the interests of those natives who inhabit the countries.
LORD HINDLIP: I beg to thank the noble Duke for his reply.

SMOKE AND NOXIOUS VAPOURS.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH had given Notice to call attention to the final Report of the Departmental Committee on "Smoke and Noxious Vapours Abatement," of which Lord Newton was Chairman, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to take any action or to introduce any legislation this session in accordance with the Committee's recommendations.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, I beg to ask the Question which he has placed on the paper, namely:—
"To ask His Majesty's Government whether they contemplate any legislation to give effect to the recommendations in the Report of the Committee on 'Smoke and Noxious Vapours Abatement.'"
In the few words that I desire to say I am not going into matters upon which we are all thoroughly agreed—namely, how much better the inhabitants of our towns and cities would be if they breathed purer air, and had a larger share of the direct light of the sun. Nor am I going into the question of the deterioration of our public buildings and our ancient monuments by reason of the impure atmosphere in which they have to exist. Upon those matters we are all thoroughly agreed.
All I want to say now, in putting the Question, is that a practical suggestion has been made by the Departmental
372
Committee, presided over by Lord Newton. If I may be permitted to say so, I think that Committee was very wise in not proposing any very drastic new legislation. We must proceed quietly and with caution in this matter. With regard to the domestic use of coal the Committee said that in their opinion the time has not arrived for proposing any drastic legislation regarding the use of coal in domestic affairs. They point out how necessary fuel economy is, and say:
"Our particular concern is with its bearing on atmospheric purification. It is clear that the smoke problem, particularly with regard to smoke from domestic sources, will finally be solved when, and if, a solid smokeless fuel can be produced economically on a commercial scale. It might then be both practicable and desirable to legislate against the burning of raw coal."
We have to possess ourselves in patience for a time. We cannot deal with the whole question of the use of our coal supply by any hurried legislation.
Putting aside the domestic use of coal the Committee, in regard to the use of coal for manufactures, also definitely state—and I think it is a very wise statement—that in their opinion no legislation can be passed which interferes in any way with the trade of the country. You cannot impose any regulation which would interfere with trade, and the Committee come to the general conclusion that it is not so much a question of fresh legislation as it is a question of putting into force and into more general operation the legislation which already exists, but which is too much of a permissive character. The Committee suggest that too much is left to the local authorities without the driving power of the Government being behind them to see that the regulations are carried out. It is not always easy for local authorities to be strong enough to compel those who are lax to conform to the regulations; very often they are influential persons; but the local authorities could do so, and should do so, and they would have no excuse for not doing so if they were called upon by a Government Department to see that the legislation which has been passed is put into force.
My object in raising these points is to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can tell us that they will act upon the recommendations of this Report and move a step forward. We cannot do it rapidly, but we must do it whenever we have the opportunity, and back up what I may call

373
the admirable work of the Coal Smoke Abatement Society to which body we owe so much of the spade work which has been done in getting people to take an interest in a question so vital to our health and our buildings.
I hope the Government will not leave the Report of this Departmental Committee alone. It often happens that although the legislation would be useful the difficulty of finding time to carry small Bills founded on the recommendations of such a Committee means that they are pigeon holed. The question crops up again after an interval of years, perhaps because there is an agitation on the subject, and again the Government propose a Committee; and so it goes on, and we make no progress. If the Government will I ell us that they see their way to act upon the recommendations of this Committee, I am sure those who are interested in smoke abatement, as far as we can attain it, will be very grateful.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that the Government fully appreciate the smoke evil and are in full sympathy with the efforts made to combat it. I should like to re-echo his words of appreciation of the labours of the Committee over which Lord Newton presided and of the efforts which have been made to counteract the evil by the Coal Smoke Abatement Society. At this late hour I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with any long observations because I hope we shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter more fully at an early date. I hope to be able to give a satisfactory answer to the noble Earl when I tell him that we propose to introduce a Bill into this House dealing with the matters into which Lord Newton's Committee inquired.
374
I should add that having regard to the Parliamentary situation and the pressing matters which occupy its attention, I cannot undertake that it will be possible to pass the measure through another place during the present session. But we hope to introduce it in your Lordships' House at an early date, when the matter can be more thoroughly discussed. The position, at the moment, is this. We are awaiting the receipt of the draft Bill from the Coal Smoke Abatement Society. We have been promised it at an early date, and when we receive it we shall get on with the drafting of the measure which I trust will be introduced into this House shortly.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I be allowed to express the gratification I feel at the announcement just made by the noble Earl. I think anyone who has paid any attention to this question, or who has read the Report, will recognise that the time for Government action has arrived. I do not wish to appear ungrateful, but it has struck me that the deplorable condition of this country with regard to this matter is largely due to the apathy of Governments in the past. I rejoice to think that at last we have found a Minister in the person of Sir Alfred Mond who has recognised the necessity of doing something. I am convinced, from my own experience, that the Bill will be welcomed by a large section of intelligent opinion in this country, and in view of the extremely moderate recommendations we have made, which, I understand, will probably be embodied in the measure, I look forward to its passing with more hope than one usually feels on similar occasions. I repeat my expression of gratitude to the noble. Earl for the announcement he has made.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

CROFTS' DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]

  MORTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the cases, returned from the Commons.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TAMWORTH EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
  CHESTER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  TORQUAY CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY) BILL. [H.L.]
  WORTHING CORPORATION BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—

  E. Fitzwilliam,

  L. Fairfax,

  L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss) (Chairman),

  L. Lawrence,

  L. Wyfold;

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

FIFE TRUST ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Judges' Report received: Bill presented, and read 1a.
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on March 8 and April 10 last discharged, and Bill committed.
PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.
Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.