Sitting of 30 November 1922

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

  STANDING ORDERS.
  A TABLE OF THE FEES TO BE CHARGED AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  FEES TO BE PAID BY THE OPPONENTS OT A PRIVATE BILL.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move, at the end of the paragraph, to insert a new paragraph—
  "FEES TO BE PAID BY THE APPLICANTS FOR A PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  On the Second Heading of a Provisional Order Bill, other than a Bill to confirm an Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the applicants for each Provisional Order included in the Bill shall be charged a fee of £15.
  For Proceedings before the Court of Referees or any Committee the same fees shall be charged to applicants and opponents as in the case of Private Bills."
  The promoters of Private Bills have to pay very substantial fees at every stage of progress of these Bills through Parliament. The minimum amount is £65. But if the promoters of a Bill, instead of coming direct to the House, apply in the first instance for a Provisional Order, and come to the House after obtaining that Order, they pay nothing. The present proposal is that they should pay a fee of £15 on the Second Reading and a small fee of £2 2s. or £3 3s. when they come Before a Committee. We think it just that they should pay, because they use the machinery and accommodation of Parliament and they are entitled to the services of Members of Parliament on these occasions. It is a curious anomaly in connection with these committees that if a Private Bill be opposed the opponents have to pay while the promoters do not.
  860
  It is estimated that this change will bring in about £1,000 annually to the revenue. It has already been adopted in another place, and I would ask the House to assent to it.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  WEST INDIA AND PANAMA TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Copy ordered, "of Agreement, dated the 29th day of November, 1922, between His Majesty's Government, the Government of the Dominion of Canada, the Crown Agents for the Colonies, and the West India and Panama Telegraph Company, Limited, supplemental to an agreement between the said parties, dated the 10th day of August, 1914 (Parliamentary Paper, No. 447, of Session 1914), and to two Agreements, dated the 16th day of March, 1921 (Parliamentary Paper, No. 58, of Session 1921) and the 24th day of August, 1921, respectively, between His Majesty's Government and the said Company and between the Government of the Dominion of Canada and the said Company; together with Copy of the Treasury Minute thereon."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    MENTAL CASES.
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the position of the 700 mental cases who were turned out of the Government mental hospitals and sent to the common asylums at the charge of the local ratepayers, their pensions being stopped at the time of discharge; and, if he cannot reconsider this, will he give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The hon. Member is under a serious misapprehension. None of the cases in question were, as he suggests, turned out of Government hospitals. All certified cases of insanity are, by the law of the land, required to be in public asylums. Nor were any of the men in question in receipt of pensions. With regard to the suggestion in the last

    861
    part of the question, perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave in the course of discussion on the Adjournment last night.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions how many of the 600 insane ex-service men whose maintenance has been thrown upon Poor Law authorities have appealed against the stoppage of pension allowances and treatment by his Department; what number of these appeals have been determined, and with what results; what steps have been taken to ensure that every one of these men are given facilities to appeal; and whether local pensions committees have been asked to assist these unfortunate men to prepare their cases for appeal?
    Major TRYON: The right of appeal to the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal has been open to these, as to all other cases, during the past four years, and many of them have already appealed, but in response to the notice specially sent out six months ago, I find that in about 275 cases further appeals, have been made. I regret that I have not complete figures as to the number of appeals which have at present been heard by the tribunals, but I am taking steps to obtain the information, and if the hon. Member will put a question down next week I shall be happy to give him the figures then available. Most careful steps were taken by my Department to ensure that every case was fully considered. In addition to the notifications to local authorities and others as to the approaching termination of the Ministry's liability in these cases, which made specific reference to the right of appeal, a special notification to this effect was sent to the nearest known relative of every man. In addition, my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Pensions caused special and independent review to be made by the Department itself into the merits of every case in order to satisfy himself again that the decision was right, and this review is being continued under my personal supervision. Intimation was sent at the same time to local committees, and it is their practice to assist appellants in a large number of cases.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what length of notice is given to the nearest relatives and what
    862
    machinery is available to assist distressed relatives in making their appeals?
    Major TRYON: I cannot give the dates of the different notices. It is the duty of our Committee to help these men to formulate their appeals and to put them forward. We do not take up the position of opposing their appeals, and all the information we have, not merely against but in favour of a man, is supplied by us.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I asked particularly so far as the near relatives are concerned. It is not quite right to suggest that you help the patient who is a lunatic. What help do you give the nearest relative in properly formulating an appeal?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question on that specific point.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the public hostility to the policy of his Department, by which insane ex-service men have been made paupers, he will reconsider the decision to withdraw allowances until the cases have been heard on appeal to tribunals or the House has had an opportunity to discuss the question?
    Major TRYON: A large number of appeals have been made to the tribunal in these cases, and I have obtained special authority to continue to bear the cost of treatment for the men until the tribunal have given their decision.
    Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider obtaining the sanction of this House for an alteration to the Royal Warrant, to enable him to accept as due to service any mental case of an ex-service man who served in the firing line, if only for one day, or who served overseas for not less than three months continuously?
    Major TRYON: The question whether a man's disability is due to or is worsened by service, which is the sole condition under which pension can be granted, is determined on the facts of each individual case, with full regard to the medical condition, conditions of service and other circumstances in the case. Active service overseas is, I can assure my hon. Friend, given the fullest weight in determining the question. I could not recommend the introduction into the Warrant of a purely arbitrary distinction

    863
    between various kinds of service as a basis for the award of pension, and I do not think that such a distinction as that suggested by my hon. Friend would be in the best interests of ex-service men themselves.

    TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Pensions the number of disabled or partially disabled men who have received training; the number who are now self-supporting; and whether, in view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of able-bodied ex-service men, munition workers, and others formerly engaged in occupations necessary for the successful prosecution of the late War are totally unable to obtain employment, he will recommend the Treasury to grant full and complete disability pensions for all disabled or partially disabled men and their dependants until such time as those who are able-bodied and fit for work have obtained employments?
    Major TRYON: As regards the first and second parts of the question, I under stand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that on the 31st October last the number of men who had received industrial training was 62,402, of whom 57,605 were disabled, and that there is no complete information available as to the number of ex-trainees who are now self-supporting. I may say that, in addition to the numbers already stated, some 11,000 disabled men were trained by the Ministry of Pensions prior to the transfer, in August, 1919, of the responsibility for training to the Ministry of Labour. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that the, amount of disablement pension is regulated solely by the degree of disablement resulting from War service as assessed from time to time by medical boards which examine the man. I regret that I do not see my way to recommend any? departure from this principle to meet conditions arising from unemployment.

    TUBERCULOSIS PATIENTS (DIET)
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state the grounds on which it was decided to stop allowances for special diet for ex-service men while under treatment
    864
    for tuberculosis; how many of these men were receiving extra nourishment in the month of November, 1921, and in the same month of 1922; and what is the annual saving effected by this change?
    Major TRYON: The provision of special diet was introduced to meet abnormal conditions in regard to food supply which no longer obtain, and at a time when the pension and allowance scales were on an average only half their present rates. It is not the case that special diet in cases of tuberculosis is no longer given. An extra allowance is still granted in cases of pulmonary tuberculosis (whether the man is under treatment or not) where the circumstances justify the concession. The amount granted for special diet to tuberculous pensioners during the month of September last (the latest date for which figures are available) was about £3,000 as compared with £11,000 a year ago.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    WOMEN SUPERVISORS.
    Mr. WIGNALLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that many supervisory women officers in his Department receive less than those supervised, and that general dissatisfaction exists among the higher grades in consequence of this and other anomalies in their position; and whether he will consider referring to the industrial court the present differences of opinion as to the appropriate rates for the Departmental classes of divisional and assistant divisional superintendent, group supervisors, and checkers?
    Major TRYON: The rates of pay of temporary divisional superintendents, assistant divisional superintendents and group supervisors are in all cases higher than those of the grades whom they supervise; there are, however, a few instances where a temporary clerk is temporarily drawing less pay than a clerk in the grade below. This is due to the fact that the minimum pay of the higher grade is below the maximum pay of the lower; but the scales of pay, which were agreed with the staff associations concerned, are common to the temporary clerical staff of all Government Departments, and there are no grounds on which

    865
    a special concession could be made to the staff affected in this Ministry. I have received no recent representations as to the alleged inadequacy of the pay or the Departmental classes referred to, and in any case, I do not consider that the matter is one for reference to the Industrial Court.

    WOMEN (TEMPORARY OFFICERS).
    Mr. WIGNALLasked the Prime Minister whether he IB aware that before the Dissolution of the last Parliament petitions with several thousand signatures, including numbers from taxpayers not directly concerned, were sent to the Treasury appealing for an Industrial Court hearing of the case for and against further reductions in the rates of pay of temporary women civil servants; and whether he will consider allowing such a hearing to take place now, in view of the fact that it can be proved that the majority of women who would receive the proposed December reductions in salary already have insufficient food and clothing for full efficiency to be maintained, having to contribute to the support of others on inadequate wages?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, I am aware that a petition containing between two and three thousand signatures was submitted before the Dissolution of the last Parliament. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question put yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley.

    REDUCTION.
    Sir JAMES CORYasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to report on the Government Departments which could be abolished or merged, with a view to still further economy?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): The question to which my hon. Friend refers is already engaging the attention of the Government, and every effort is being made, and will continue to be made, to secure further economy in this direction.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is
    866
    considering the question of abolishing the Ministry of Transport?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes. It has been arranged that it shall be abolished at a definite time, and we are considering whether it can be hastened.

    TEMPORARY STAFFS.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a communication from representatives of the temporary staff employed in His Majesty's Departments of State requesting an interview to discuss the proposals to reduce the rates of pay; and will he receive the deputation before the revised rates become operative?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for the Bedwelty Division of Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), to which I have nothing to add.

    RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any rule in the Government service which permits persons retired on pension for service in one Department from taking whole-time posts in other civil Departments; and whether there are in the Ministries of Pensions and Labour cases in which persons with service pensions up to £l,000 a year are receiving salaries of between £500 and £1,000 a year?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The suspension or abatement of a pension awarded under the Civil Superannuation Acts in the event of the pensioner being re-employed in an office in a public Department is dealt with by Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, to which I may refer the hon. Member. A retired officer of the Army, Navy or Air Force re-employed in a civil capacity is not normally subject to suspension or abatement of his retired pay, which is, of course, awarded under conditions quite different from those applicable to civil pensions. I am not aware of the employment in the Ministry of Labour of any officer with a service pension approximating to £l,000 per annum, tout I understand that a number of retired senior officers of His Majesty's forces with considerable service pensions are employed in the Ministry of Pensions

    867
    in posts for which their qualifications and experience render them peculiarly suitable.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any in receipt of Civil Service pensions employed at full rates in either of the other Departments?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should doubt that, but if the hon. Member will put a question down, I will look into it.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. CASSELSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many conscientious objectors to military service have been given employment by the Government since the Armistice; how many still remain in Government employment; and if there is any work which these men are doing which could not as well be performed by ex-service men now out of employment?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The employment in Government Departments of conscientious objectors to military service is only permitted in the case of certain individuals who already held permanent appointments. The total number so employed was estimated a year ago at 210 to 230; but I am not aware whether any of the men then employed have since left Government service. On the grounds for their retention, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Report of the Select Committee on the Civil Service (Employment of Conscientious Objectors).

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DURHAM LIGHT INFANTRY (ARTHUR JONES).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of Pensions, concerning the case of Mr. Arthur Jones, ex-private, No. 71,420, 2nd battalion Durham Light Infantry, who enlisted in September, 1914, when he was classified Al although he bore the marks of serious bodily injury, on account of which he previously had been for six months an in-patient at the Bradford infirmary, whether he is aware that during an attack of trench fever, contracted whilst on active service in France and for which he was confined to hospital for
    868
    three months, ex-Private Jones began to have pains, where he had been injured before he enlisted, which fact he reported to the nurses in charge of his case; that two months after demobilisation further aggravation of these pains made it necessary for ex-Private Jones again to go into hospital, where he was operated upon three times for the extraction of dead bone from the seat of his old pre-War injury, and that ever since there has been continuous discharge at the place from whence the dead bone was extracted; that although treatment allowance was allowed to ex-Private Jones as a case of aggravated disability it has since been stopped, and an appeal for its continuance has been decided adversely; and whether, having regard to the facts here stated, he will take steps to satisfy the claim of ex-Private Jones for treatment allowance or, alternatively, for a pension to compensate him for his disability aggravated by war service?
    Major TRYON: The history of this case, as stated in the question, differs materially from the official record. The man was treated in hospital for trench feet for two weeks in 1916, and for no other disability at any time during service. There is no record of any physical defect on enlistment, and the man's own statement supports this. Three months after he was demobilised he made claim to pension, but the disability then found could not be connected with service. The decision of the Ministry rejecting the claim was confirmed on appeal by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and cannot, therefore, be re-opened. The man may, however, apply for a pension for trench feet if he is now suffering from that disability.

    DISABILITY PENSION (WILLIAM SMITH).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that William Smith, Case 6/MS/7064, residing at 71, Meeting Street, Wednesbury, made application for a disability pension due to pulmonary tuberculosis; that the medical report of 10th June, 1921, shows that the disability was attributable to war service; that the degree of disablement was certified to be nephritis 10 per cent., and T. B. 100 per cent.; if so, why the Ministry refused to accept the opinion of its own medical advisers and opposed the application; is he aware that in

    869
    consequence of this opposition the Pensions Appeal Tribunal rejected the man's appeal; and will he reconsider this case?
    Major TRYON: The decisions of the Tribunal are final, and I am, therefore, precluded from reopening this case.
    Mr. SHORT: Why, although the Ministry's own medical officer was in favour of this man's claim, has the Ministry failed to accept it and opposed the man's application before the Appeal Tribunal? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a satisfactory policy?
    Major TRYON: It is not right to say that we opposed the claim. We were unable to grant the claim. All the information was given to the Appeal Tribunal, and the most satisfactory way of dealing with a case of grave doubt is to have a decision by an independent body.
    Mr. SHORT: Why could not the right hon. Gentleman accept the decision of the medical officer, before whom he compelled the man to go, which is in favour of the man?
    Major TRYON: In a case of grave doubt we have to go into the matter fully. As we were unable with the differences of opinion, to come to a decision, it was decided by an independent tribunal, which seems to me to be the fairest way.
    Mr. SHORT: What is the virtue in compelling a man to go before a medical officer whose decision is not accepted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot argue the matter by question and answer.

    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE REGIMENT (THOMAS BOWDLER).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that John Thomas Bowdler, No. 18,145, South Staffordshire Regiment, now residing at 18, Pagett's Passage, Wednesbury, recently applied for a pension for disability due to pulmonary tuberculosis; that the Ministry opposed the claim; that the medical report of 4th April, 1922, indicated that Bowdler's disability was 100 per cent, due to pulmonary tuberculosis; that Bowdler suffered the amputation of his left leg due to gunshot wounds; that the T.B. officer reported on the 18th May, 1922, that the amputation of the leg, plus the effects of gas poisoning
    870
    of Bowdler in 1916, largely contributed to the development of pulmonary tuberculosis; that the reports of his approved society show that Bowdler enjoyed good health before the War and had received no benefits; that his local medical attendant stated he had known Bowdler for 20 years and had never treated him for tuberculosis; that, in consequence of the opposition of the Ministry, the Pension Appeal Tribunal rejected Bowdler's application; that Bowdler was an inmate of the Moxley Sanatorium, Wednesbury, when his appeal was rejected; and, having regard to these facts, is he prepared to reconsider this case?
    Major TRYON: The claim in respect of tuberculosis was rejected by the Ministry as, after full consideration of all the circumstances, it was not found possible to accept the condition as being connected with service, which ended more than five years before the first appearance of the disease. This decision has been confirmed by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal and is therefore final. I may add that the man is in receipt of a permanent pension at the 60 per cent, rate in respect, of his wounds.
    Mr. SHORT: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question upon the Adjournment to-night.

    WIDOW'S PENSION (MRS. E. SHARKEY).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. Sharkey, widow of Edward Sharkey, No. 363,761, Labour Corps, has been allowed a pension of 5s. 6d. per week for herself and four children; that Erward Sharkey was discharged from the Army on account of gunshot wounds; that he had wounds on the fingers of the left hand, the matter coming from which was poisonous; that Mrs. Sharkey was warned not to touch these wounds; and that as soon as he was dead mortification set in, the body turning black; and whether he will have this case reopened with a view to granting a more satisfactory allowance to this woman and her children?
    Major TRYON: This man died more than three years after discharge from an attack of acute pneumonia lasting only four days. The Ministry, after full consideration of all the circumstances, were

    871
    unable to accept the cause of death as being connected with service, and that decision, having been confirmed by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, is final. I regret, therefore, that ho greater pension than that already awarded under Article 17 of the Royal Warrant can be given by my Department.

    PROSECUTION, GLASGOW.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. Marion M'Donald, 62, Eaglesham Street, Plantation, Glasgow, was charged at the instance of the Ministry of Pensions with defrauding the Pensions Ministry of the sum of £3 3s. 9d.; that this woman has been fined £5 or 14 days' imprisonment; whether the accusation was to the effect that she had boarded her lodgers, from whom she received 5s. per week: whether he will state if this is the policy pursued by the Ministry towards the widowed mothers of soldiers who have been killed in the War; and whether, in view of the indignation which is being caused by this treatment of soldiers' dependants, he is prepared to abandon further action against this woman and to recommend the Secretary for Scotland to quash the sentence imposed upon her?
    Major TRYON: This woman pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining money from public funds by false pretences and was convicted by the Court. I have no power to interfere with the sentence of the Court, nor can I undertake to evade my duty, however unpleasant, of instituting proceedings where there is clear evidence of intent to defraud the State.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this woman only received temporary money and was advised by the detective to plead guilty, and that she had no legal assistance in the Court and was under the impression that what she had done was right so far as she was concerned? Again, as this seems to be the method adopted by the Ministry of Pensions, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration those cases and stop these prosecutions going on?
    Major TRYON: It is not in the power of the Ministry to stop a prosecution decided on by other authorities, but the reluctance with which we have prosecuted
    872
    in these cakes is Shown by the fact that in the comparatively few cases in which we have prosecuted there have almost invariably been convictions. This shows that we have only proceeded with reluctance and when it was necessary to do so.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Was not this prosecution instituted by the Ministry of Pensions on the report of their own investigator, and is this the new method adopted by the Ministry of Pensions in trying to find out through those people something which is not against them, but which ought to be in their favour—trying to support themselves?
    Major TRYON: We have no desire to prejudice the case, but if we find a thing done which is wrong, it is obviously our duty to report it.

    MOTHER'S PENSION (MRS. JULIA GRAY).
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions whether an investigator from the Pensions Office called upon Mrs. Julia, Gray, 53, Reid Street, Govan, whose son was killed in the War and who is at present in receipt of a pension; whether he is aware that this woman's husband is at present unemployed and she has been compelled to do occasional work; whether the investigator has informed Mrs. Gray that she may be summoned for defrauding the Ministry, as she did not inform them of the wages she was earning when in temporary employment; whether, in view of the large number of similar cases that are at present being summoned in Glasgow and in Scotland generally, he can state if this is the new policy to be pursued by the Ministry of Pensions towards the dependants of soldiers who fell in the Great War; and whether he is prepared to assure the House that such action will be abandoned?
    Major TRYON: This case is at present under investigation, and I am, therefore, unable to give the hon. Member any assurance as to the action which will be taken.
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask whether it is not the case that, where individuals are out of employment temporarily, the Ministry looks upon that as sometimes not entitling them to any increase in their pensions, while in cases where women get temporary employment it seems that the

    873
    Ministry is desirous of contending that these people are endeavouring to, defraud the Ministry, and the Ministry either reduces the pension or brings the people into court?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is too long a supplementary question.
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. These cases are becoming very numerous throughout the country, and it seems to be the settled policy of—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The matter can be raised on the Motion for Adjournment. That will be the opportunity for the hon. Member. This is not the time to debate the matter.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am sorry to press the point of Order, but this is a matter which seems to mark a new policy in the part of the Ministry of Pensions, and the only way in which we can raise the issue is by putting questions to the Minister. I am, therefore, asking him—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That would take up the whole of Question Time, to the detriment of other Members. When a hon. Member puts down a question, and receives an answer with which he is not satisfied, he can put down further questions, and so pursue the matter.

    APPLICATIONS (TIME LIMIT).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Pensions how many new applications for pensions were received during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1922; how many of these were granted; and whether it is proposed to enforce the seven years' limit allowed to men disabled in the late War to send in their applications?
    Major TRYON: During the year ending 30th September last, 107,000 applications, of all classes were received, and in 53,000 cases an award of pension, weekly allowance or gratuity was made. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. I may remind the hon. Member that this time limit was approved by Parliament and is incorporated in the War Pensions Act, 1921.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Pensions if he will reconsider the order issued by the Ministry of Pensions, that, should a man die seven years after his discharge from the service, his widow or
    874
    children shall not be entitled, to pension, with, a view £o its abolition, as the order is strongly resented by ex-service men, who consider it to be unjust and contrary to the spirit of the promises made to them by previous Governments?
    Major TRYON: No order to the effect stated has been issued by my Department. A man who dies under conditions which do not render his widow eligible for the maximum rate of pension under Article 11 of the Royal Warrant is entitled to be considered for pension under Article 17, and, in fact, pensions are being awarded under the latter article. With regard to the suggestion that the seven years' time limit should be removed from Article 11, perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the memorandum issued by the late Minister of Pensions at the end of the last Parliament—Command Paper 1748–in which the difficulties in the way of the suggestion are fully set out. I have quite recently myself most carefully considered every aspect of the question, and I am very hopeful that a satisfactory solution will very shortly be arrived at.

    LEYTON AND WALTHAMSTOW PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the time of meeting of the Leyton and Walthamstow Area Pensions Committee has been fixed for 3 p.m. against the expressed wish of the ex-service members, and that as a consequence it is not possible for these men to attend the meetings without serious risk of losing their employment: and will he use his influence to have these meetings fixed at such a time as will enable ex-service men and other working-class representatives to attend without loss of working time?
    Major TRYON: The time at which War Pensions Committees shall hold their meetings is, under the regulations, left in the discretion of the Committee. I feel sure that committees will themselves be able to arrive at some arrangement which will suit the convenience of all their members.
    Mr. McENTEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence, as suggested, in view of the fact that the Committee has not been able to enter into this arrangement, and that, as a consequence, these men, working-class representatives

    875
    and ex-service men, are debarred from attending the Committee?
    Major TRYON: It would be very undesirable for the Ministry to embark on such a course as would be involved in an attempt to settle the time at which hundreds of committees should sit. I hope that the committees will arrange the time of their meetings in a way to meet the convenience of ex-service men.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions the total number of persons in the various categories who are in receipt of war pensions, and the expenditure involved, including administrative ex-penses; and whether the figures show a reduction with 12 months ago?
    Major TRYON: The approximate number of beneficiaries under the Royal Warrants on the 31st October last was 2,620,000, as compared with 3,135,000 twelve months previously. The total estimate of the expenditure of my Department for the current financial year is £89,991,000, as compared with an approximate expenditure of £95,545,000 for the financial year ending 31st March, 1922.

    STABILISATION.
    Mr. LAMBasked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider at an early date the desirability of stabilising for life all pensions to ex-service men and the abolition of medical boards, thus re-moving from the minds of those men the present unsettled feeling of uncertainty and apprehension which now exists, and at the same time, whilst economising in administration, enabling adequate compensation to be given to those who are suffering from incapacity through serving their country during the War?
    Major TRYON: Regulations for the making of final awards were issued at the beginning of the year in pursuance of Section 4 of the War Pensions Act, 1921. The scheme is in active operation and a large number of final awards have already been made. It is my intention to expedite this process as much as possible, and I have already taken steps to this end.

    PAYMENT (DELAYS).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the hard-
    876
    ship caused to ex-service men by delay in forwarding pension draft books from London to local post offices; whether he can furnish the numbers of instances in which men have been forced to apply to local offices for advances during the present year; and whether, in order to reduce this delay to a minimum, he will consider the question of having draft books and ring papers prepared and pensions paid in the offices of pensions committees?
    Major TRYON: I regret that I have no available figures as to the number of cases in which pensioners have obtained advances from local offices during the present year, but the amount paid out by way of advance during the first nine months of this year (which is an approximate guide to the number of cases) is less than half the amount paid out during the corresponding months of last year. I may point out to the hon. Member that a very large proportion of the cases in which delay occurs in the payment of current pension are due to the fact that the pensioner has neglected to complete the certificate of identification, or life certificate, which is at present required to be furnished quarterly by all persons drawing pension from public funds. The question whether this certificate of identification can be required less frequently, namely, at six-monthly instead of three-monthly intervals, which would be greatly in the interests of pensioners, is one which is being most carefully considered, and I am hopeful that this improvement may be effected. The question of decentralising pension issue to the local offices was considered by the Departmental Committee of last year, over which I presided, but the Committee were unable to recommend that the change should then be made, and I am satisfied that no benefit would accrue if it were made at the present time.

    BLACK WATCH HIGHLANDERS (CORPORAL T. WARDROP).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Corporal T. Wardrop, No. 13,241, Black Watch Highlanders, now residing at 11, Anderson Street, Bonnybridge, voluntarily joined the Army in 1914; was passed Al; contracted malaria in Mesopotamia: was discharged as physically unfit for service from Craigleith Hospital, Edinburgh; is now suffering from lung trouble, officially admitted to have been aggravated by his

    877
    War service, and has produced certificates from local doctors proving that he never suffered from lung trouble prior to his joining the Army; that he is now incapable of following his trade as an iron-moulder; has a wife and four children dependent upon him; is now in impoverished circumstances; has applied for work at motoring or repairs which he understands; will he state why no reply has been sent to his applications; and why a pension has been refused him?
    Major TRYON: I have not been able to trace any application regarding this case as having been received in the Ministry during the present year. The pensionable disability was asthma, compensation in respect of which was in payment so long as the effects of service remained.

    DEFENDANTS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the case of a soldier reported wounded and missing and later reported missing and dead as from the date of being reported wounded and missing, the pension paid to his de pendant relatives should commence from the first date; and, if not, is soldier's pay paid for the interval between the two dates to those who were dependent on him?
    Major TRYON: In these cases any separation allowance in issue was continued by the Service Department for 30 weeks and pension awarded by my Department took effect from the cessation of that allowance. Where, however, a dependant was not eligible for separation allowance or had neglected to apply for it, pension is payable from the date of application only. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the answer to the last part of the question is that pay ceased from the date on which the soldier became missing, but if he was later presumed to be dead pay was credited up to the date of presumed death.

    FINAL AWARDS BOARDS (DERBYSHIRE).
    Mr. C. WHITELasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the final awards boards; which have been set up to deal with Notts and Derbyshire cases sit only at Nottingham, thus causing inconvenience and expense to Derbyshire pensioners, in addition to which the
    878
    work has become so congested at Nottingham that doctors with no military service are employed to do this work, while Derbyshire doctors who served during the War have little or nothing to do so far as medical boards are concerned; and whether, under these circumstances, he will give instructions that Derbyshire cases shall be considered by a final awards board sitting at Derby?
    Major TRYON: These boards are specially constituted and cannot, in the interest of public economy, be multiplied more than is necessary. I am satisfied that ho unnecessary inconvenience is occasioned by the existing arrangement. The position at Nottingham is, however, being carefully watched, and should an increase of these boards prove necessary, I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind. I may point out that the travelling expenses and reasonable compensation for loss of time for the men concerned are paid by the Ministry.
    Mr. WHITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman pretend that there are no cases of congestion at Nottingham, or that many of the people have not to wait a long time on these boards?
    Major TRYON: I shall be most happy to consider any point which the hon. Member cares to bring before me.
    Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiry into this matter?
    Major TRYON: Certainly.
    Mr. BETTERTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that, in connection with these boards, only doctors with military service should be employed?
    Major TRYON: No, Sir. I cannot admit that we can avoid the use of specialist for special purposes, but our main policy is not only to employ doctors with military service, but to give preference to doctors with military service overseas.

    DERBYSHIRE YEOMANRY (C. ELLIOTT).
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now make permanent the pension of ex-Private C. Elliott, late Derbyshire Yeomanry, regimental No. 1,507, who is suffering from tubercular disease of the groin

    879
    caused by the kick of a horse whilst on military service; whether he is aware that this man has already undergone 10 operations for tills disability and has now been ordered to a military hospital to undergo a farther operation, and that this disability was incurred seven years ago; and whether, Under these circumstances, this man's case can be finally disposed of by granting him a permanent pension?
    Major TRYON: I am personally looking into the circumstances of this case.
    Mr. WHITE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman really think 10 operations are sufficient for this man to undergo before he gets his final award?
    Major TRYON: It is because of the circumstances brought to my notice by the hon. Member that I propose to look into the case further.

    WIDOW'S PENSION (MRS. F. BRADWELL).
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the case of Mrs. F. Bradwell, of Bradwell, Derbyshire, widow of Private Charles R. Bradwell, No. 28,234, Manchester Regiment, whose death was due to disability incurred on military service; whether he is aware that this woman is left with three children, the eldest only five years old; whether he is aware that she has been refused a pension on the ground that the man's removal from duty was not caused by the disability from which he is said to have died; and whether he will review the whole case with a view to Mrs. Bradwell receiving a pension?
    Major TRYON: The late soldier died two and a-half years after demobilisation from endocarditis, the first medical evidence of which is dated April, 1922 My medical advisers are unable to find such connection between the cause of the death and the man's military service as will satisfy the conditions of the Royal Warrant, and an award of pension cannot therefore be made to the widow. She has, however, a right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal against the decision of the Ministry.
    Mr. WHITE: In that appeal will she be opposed by the Ministry of Pensions, as is usually done?
    Major TRYON: She will be given all the information available.
    Mr. WHITE: How does the Minister expect this poor woman, living on parish relief, adequately to fight her case?
    Major TRYON: The hon. Member, I think, misunderstands altogether the attitude of the Pensions Ministry. Our business is to place all the facts before the tribunal, and those familiar with the work of the tribunals know that.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that, while it is true that the Ministry of Pensions furnish a précis of the evidence, the onus of disproving the facts lies upon the poor woman or the poor soldier, and in many cases they can only very inadequately state their case?
    Major TRYON: No, Sir, I do not consider that the onus is at all left upon the applicants. In all the cases that have passed through my hands, and where information, civilian or otherwise, is desired, we make it our business to apply to the Service Departments for medical records, etc., so that we may have all the information that will help the applicant.
    Mr. HOGGE: We have already admitted that; but is not the point this, that after the Ministry has done all that, the person who has to plead before the Court is in that sense incapable, and should there not be some assistance given to him to prove his case?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a new question.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister what Minister is to be in charge of the League of Nations questions; and who will attend meetings of the council on behalf of this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Questions in regard to the League of Nations should be addressed to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As regards the last part of the question, I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Lord R. CECIL: Would it be any use to put down this question again before the end of the Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I really do not think so. We are so pressed that it is very difficult to come to a decision of this kind.
    Lord R.CECIL: Could it not be settled whether it is to be a Cabinet Minister or not?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No; that is one of the things I am considering.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of our representative on the Council of the league of Nations being elected by Parliament instead of nominated by the Government?

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the self-governing Dominions have long passed from the status of colonies, ho will consider the alteration of the title of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or bring the matter before the Imperial Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTERS: I have never heard it suggested by the representatives of any of the Dominions that there was any desire for the change suggested, but if such a desire were felt it would no doubt be raised at the Imperial Conference.

    IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether the invitations have been issued for the Imperial Conference; what subjects have been notified for discussion by any of the parties to the Conference; and whether the Irish Free State will be represented?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that it may be found generally convenient to hold a meeting of the Imperial Conference next year, but no invitations have yet been issued, and the date of meeting must, I think, depend partly on whether it is decided to hold an Imperial Economic Conference distinct from, and in advance of, the Imperial Conference. The second part of the question does not arise at present, but, as to the third, an invitation, when the time comes, will be extended to the Irish Free State.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Has the right hon. Gentleman, observed a paragraph in the newspapers to-day on behalf of the Chief Whip at Portsmouth, to the effect that the invitations were to go out next week?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen that they had gone already.

    ROADS (MAINTENANCE).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether, in any investigation of the pressure of rates on agricultural land, he will cause the investigation to extend to the severe pressure on the rates of the present upkeep, repair, and maintenance of rural district roads which have to be maintained entirely out of local rates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This question will receive careful consideration.

    ASSIZES.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Prime Minister whether steps are to be taken to alter the system relating to the holding of the Assizes at the present county towns; and whether this House will be given the opportunity of discussing any proposed changes before they are carried into effect?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I cannot give an answer to the second part of the question until the Committee has reported.
    Mr. FOOT: Do I understand from the answer that it is possible this considerable change—which has been denounced by many of the Judges—may be brought about without the House having an opportunity of expressing its opinion?
    Sir D. HOGG: Until the Committee reports, it is impossible for us to say whether any considerable change will be required. Until we know what sort of changes are required, we cannot say whether it will be necessary to bring them before the House.

    INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCES.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in the interests of peaceful co-operation in industry, he will take steps to invite representatives of the employers and the employed to meet in a joint industrial conference with a view to arriving at an agreed basis for the establishment of a permanent industrial parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The House knows the value of the work done by the Industrial Councils set up as the result of the Committee presided over by you, Mr. Speaker, but I am inclined to think that the object desired by my Noble Friend could not be attained by the action of the Government and could only succeed if it were undertaken on the joint initiative of employers and workmen.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman at all events make inquiry from representatives of the employers and employed as to whether such action by the Government would, not be welcome?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have spoken to the parties concerned, and the opinion seems to be that at present nothing could usefully be done. I shall, however, make further inquiry.

    IMPERIAL AIRSHIP SERVICE.
    Sir NEWTON MOOREasked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House of the result of the investigation on the proposed Imperial airship service by the Committee presided over by the First Lord of the Admiralty; if the result of this investigation is satisfactory, will he indicate the intentions of the Government at an early date, in view of the urgency of improving Empire communication.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The report of this investigation is now before the Government, which is, however, not yet in a position to announce its decision.
    Captain VISCOUNT CURZON: Would not an airship service give employment to a certain number of people, and could it not be considered in relation to the Government proposals for the relief of unemployment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question will be considered as soon as we possibly can. That is all I can say.
    Mr. WELLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the position at Bedford—affecting the employment of 1,500 men—where unemployment is rife, in connection with the airship scheme?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

    ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL.
    Mr. MIDDLETONasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to fill the office of Assistant Postmaster-General or whether the abolition of the post is under consideration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This appointment has not been filled because I think it desirable to look into the question of whether such a post is necessary or not.

    RAILWAY FACILITIES, BRADFORD.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Prime Minister if he will receive a deputation from the local authority of the City of Bradford for the purpose of showing the city's need for fresh railway facilities, how the city has been neglected in this respect, and how in any negotiations he may undertake with the railway interests for the provision of new additions to the rail arteries of the nation he may be strengthened by the evidence from Bradford?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot myself undertake to receive a deputation on this question, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, with wham I have been in communication, would be glad to hear any representations from the Bradford Corporation. The hon. Member will realise that the Government have no power to require the companies to take action.

  IRELAND.

    FEEB STATE (EXECUTIONS).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Govern-

    885
    ment made any representations to the Irish Free State Government to prevent the execution of Erskine Childers and his four colleagues; and whether His Majesty's Government will make representations to prevent further executions of war prisoners in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (PENSIONS).
    Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the payment of pensions of Irish civil servants who retire or may be discharged in consequence of the change of Government, or who have retired prior to the change, will be guaranteed statutorily by the British Government; and whether such pensioners will be guaranteed that they shall not be in a less favourable condition, as regards the terms, Conditions, and tenure of their pensions than they would have been had they continued in the service of the British Government?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The payment of fair compensation, on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to Irish civil servants who are discharged by the Free State or who retire in consequence of the change of Government, is prescribed and promised by Article 10 of the Treaty, to which statutory force has already been given, on the part of Great Britain, by the Free State Agreement Act, 1922, and on the part of Ireland by the Constitution of the Irish Free State which is being ratified by the Bill now before Parliament. The pensions of persons who retired prior to the change of Government are payable in the first place out of British revenues, subject to recovery from Irish funds.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether persons who retire under Article 10 of the Treaty will have their pensions guaranteed by the British Government, and whether that guarantee will be embodied in the Statute?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I think that matter was fully discussed last night.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no answer was given, and can he give one now?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would rather my hon. and learned Friend put a question on the Paper.

    EXECUTION OF EX-MINISTERS, GREECE.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Prime Minister what action was taken by the representative of His Majesty's Government at Athens to prevent the execution of former Greek Ministers who are being tried for high treason; and what are the reasons for any intervention that has taken place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I stated yesterday that His Majesty's Government had urged the Greek Government not to permit the execution of the ex-Ministers, and had warned them that, if this step were taken, we should withdraw our representative. In taking this action His Majesty's Government were actuated by the general consideration that it is contrary to the practice of civilised Governments to put to death out-going Ministers on account of the failure of their policy. I may add that these executions were carried out by a committee resulting from a military revolution.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether in this matter we acted in concert with our Allies; whether our Allies propose to take similar action in withdrawing their representatives from Athens, and, if not, why in this case alone we acted without consultation with our Allies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In this case we did not act in concert with our Allies. It is a case in which, on its merits, we think the British Government were right in taking the action they took.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask whether the Greek Minister has left or is leaving?
    The PRIME MINISTER: He is not now in London. He was away before this happened.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1921.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state whether the Government will bring

    887
    in legislation extending the life of Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to a previous question by the hon. Member last Monday.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that unless something is done to renew the Act this Session, a large number of very poor boroughs in London will simply be bankrupt? As I postponed the question till to-day, can I get an answer to-morrow or on Monday? When will the Minister be able to make up his mind and give a definite answer?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: It is quite impossible to say when Ministers can make up their mind and give definite answers, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is considering the matter in conjunction with those responsible, and that there will be no undue delay.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister has told us that he hopes to wind up this Session in a day or two; is he aware that there is no time to lose if we are to have this Act renewed in time to give these poor boroughs the relief they need; and is he aware of the fact that, to their credit, the richer boroughs do not object to the renewal of this Act?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am aware of all those considerations.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider at the same time the extension of the same Act to the necessitous boroughs in the counties?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    GERMANY (RHINELAND PEOVINCES).
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of any attempt to separate what are known as
    888
    the Rhineland provinces from Germany by our ally France, such attempt will be opposed by His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This question is hypothetical, and it is obviously quite impossible for me to answer it.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a French official despatch recently published in the "Manchester Guardian," a paper of repute, bearing upon this question, in which that policy is advocated and pursued with vigour, and in the event of the despatch to M. Poincaré being put into operation and the policy indicated there—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speak up!
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the hon. Member will realise that, as no such proposal has been made to His Majesty's Government, it is obvious that we cannot give an answer to something that is entirely hypothetical.

    GERMANY (AEMIES OF OCCUPATION).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the aggregate cost of the Armies of Occupation in Germany since the Armistice; and what has been the average cost per man per day, respectively, of the British, French, Belgian, and American Armies of Occupation?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement in answer to this question.
    The statement promised is as follows:
    The total cost of each Army of Occupation from the Armistice up to 30th April, 1922, was:
    National Currencies.

    United States of America, 290,812,934 dollars.

    Britain, £54,317,511 3s. 11d.

    France, 2,971,114,868 French francs.

    Belgium, 504,628,330 Belgian francs.

    Figures cannot be given for any period subsequent to 30th April, 1922, as by the Agreement of the 11th March, 1922, it was decided to limit the annual charge against Germany to a definite figure, irrespective of the actual cost to each country. This maximum (excluding the Army of the United States as that Gov-

    889
    ernment was not a signatory to the March Agreement) is 220,000,tW0 gold marks, divided provisionally as follows:

    Great Britain, £2,000,000.

    France, 460,000,000 French francs.

    Belgium, 102,000,000 Belgian francs.

    It is impossible, without an elaborate calculation, to give the average cost per man per day over the whole period, but the rates for April, 1922, were:

    United States of America, 4.68 dollars.

    Great Britain, 12s. 6½d.

    France, 14.63 French francs.

    Belgium, 14.88 Belgian francs.

    Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion, if any, of the £54,000,000, which is the cost of the Army of Occupation on the Rhine since the Armistice, has been paid by the German Government; and will he inform the House what steps His Majesty's Government is taking to ensure the payment of this sum?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Practically the whole of the £54,000,000 to which the hon. Member refers has already been paid by the German Government.

    ENEMY ACTION (BRITISH CLAIMS).
    Captain W. BENNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the unsatisfactory rate of progress in dealing with the compensation of British nationals in respect of damage suffered from enemy action, he proposes any means for accelerating the distribution of the grant to persons many of whom are in need of money?
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any steps will be taken to meet the claims for reparation from the victims of enemy action during the War; and whether some measure of relief can be immediately granted to those who, in consequence of the destruction of their property, are in extreme need?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action is doing its utmost to press on with the large number of claims which are before it. Payments on account are being made to necessitous claimants in certain cases, and over 800 such payments have already been made.
    Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that one-hundredth part only of the money set aside has been distributed, and as this matter is urgent, and there has been delay for many months, cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer improve the machinery in some way?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have often felt that a long time has been taken, but I doubt whether the House realises the number of claims coming in—over 60,000–and dealing with them must be a matter of time. The Committee are urging the matter forward as well as they can, and the only way would seem to be to make some provision for necessitous cases, as has been done; but I will keep this under review.

    REPARATION COMMISSION, BULGARIA (BRITISH STAFF).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the names of the British staff of the Reparations Commission resident in Bulgaria, the total annual cost of the Commission, and the amount of reparations, if any, received from Bulgaria?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The British delegate on Inter-Allied Commission in Bulgaria is; Sir E. Colvin, who is assisted by a secretary (Mr. Bruce), seven assistants, one-translator, and two typists. Four of these posts will shortly cease on completion of existing contracts. The cost of the Commission, which does not fall on the British Exchequer, is for 1922, approximately, £42,000, and for 1923 is estimated at £33,000. I understand that Bulgaria has not yet paid any reparation in cash, but has made certain deliveries in kind, mainly to Serbia.
    Mr. DAVIES: Can we have from the right hon. Gentleman the value of the goods that Bulgaria has paid in kind?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I will see whether that can be obtained.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is it not true that though technically the expenditure for this Commission will not fall on the British Exchequer yet, in point of fact, there is no possiblity of receiving any reparation payment from Bulgaria, and therefore it has to be paid for by the British Exchequer; and is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a

    891
    tremendous burden on the, finances of Bulgaria though the sum does not appear to us to be very large?

    COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the severe depression in the coal-mining industry and the serious drop in miners' wages, he is prepared to institute an inquiry into the conditions under which the industry is being carried on at present and into the state of its finances?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion in the hon. Member's question.

    CABINET SECRETARIAT.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of the Cabinet keeps a record only of its proceedings; and whether he will consider the desirability of such record being kept by the Prime Minister's private secretary, changing with each Government, and thereby avoiding one person being the repository of the opinions of each member of preceding Cabinets?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Secretary of the Cabinet records only the decisions of the Cabinet. I think, therefore, that the second part of the question does not arise.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of the change I have suggested, that there should not be one person employed permanently in this position, but that the Prime Minister's first private secretary should keep the records?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I really do not see that there is any advantage in that. The Cabinet Secretary is, like any other, a permanent civil servant, and I think his experience with one Government would be of value to the next.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister the exact number of the Cabinet Secretariat before his advent to office and the number of the Secretariat now; and to what Department have the remaining members been allocated?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The staff of the Cabinet Secretariat on the 1st October last was 102; the present staff, which is in a state of transition, is 63. Of this number, 27 have been declared redundant and are under notice, or, in the case of permanent civil servants, awaiting transfer to other Departments where vacancies may exist. The clerical, messenger and cleaning staff work also for the Committee of Imperial Defence. Of the 39 persons by whom the staff has been reduced since the date mentioned, 19 have been transferred to vacancies in the Departments of Works, Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Education and Treasury, and 20 have been discharged.
    Mr. FOOT: May we be informed how many of the 20 consist of the charwomen employed, to the number of 12, by the Cabinet Secretariat?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be only too pleased to look into that.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the gross receipts from arrears of Excess Profits Duty between 1st April and 1st November, 1922; and what were the repayments during the same period?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The gross receipts of Excess Profits Duty (including munitions levy) in the period from 1st April to 31st October, 1922, were £33,471,000, and the repayments £34,635,000.

    TAXATION (ARREARS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of unpaid arrears of Income Tax, Supertax, Corporation Profits Tax, and Excess Profits Duty on 30th September in 1922 and 1921, respectively?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As the answer necessarily contains a large number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The approximate amounts of Income Tax and Super-tax estimated to be due to

    893
    be paid, but not paid by the 30th September, 1921, and 1922, were as follow:

    —

    Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    30th Sept., 1921.

    30th Sept., 1922.

    £

    £

    Income Tax, including the instalment due on 1st July.

    24,000,000

    36,000,000

    Super-tax

    7,000,000

    12,500,000

    Analogous figures are not available for the other duties mentioned, but the approximate, amounts in assessment, but unpaid (less sums shown due to be remitted), were as shown below. It will be understood that these arreas do not represent finally ascertained liabilities. In the case of Excess Profits Duty especially, considerable sums are subject to adjustment on appeal or otherwise, and the Duty to be ultimately received by the Exchequer will fall far short of the amount stated.

    £

    £

    Excess Profits Duty

    296,000,000

    256,000,000

    Corporation Profits Tax

    10,000,000

    12,970,000

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (STATE GRANTS).
    Mr. R. DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made by the Committee considering the method of making State grants to local authorities, and when the Committee may be in a position to issue its report?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I understand that the Committee have taken evidence from "Government Departments and others concerned. The meetings of the Committee have been interrupted by the General Election, but are being resumed immediately. There remains a considerable amount of evidence to be taken from representatives of local authorities, and J think it is too early to say by what date they will be able to report.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that several local
    894
    authorities will not be in a position to make up their estimates until they know the result of this Committee's deliberations?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I can assure the hon. Member that this Committee is expediting its work as far as possible.

    PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a reduction in the present high price of the daily OFFICIAL REPORT of Parliamentary Debates?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the high price of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Debates and the unprecedented depression in salaries and wages and the increasing interest taken in politics by the people, he will consider the advisability of reducing the price of this publication to a level within the reach of the average household?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As has been stated on previous occasions, the present price of 1s. a copy is still below the average cost of printing and publishing, and contains no allowance for the fact that a large proportion of the copies printed are supplied gratuitously for official purposes. In the present financial position, I hesitate to increase the charge upon the taxpayer in respect of this publication, but the matter will be kept under review, and if at any time the reduced costs of production or the prospects of increased sales appear to justify a reduction in price, I shall be only too glad to authorise it.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where the OFFICIAL REPORT is printed?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I must have notice of that, but it is not printed at the Harrow works.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman think of raising the price of this production, and so reducing the amount paid by the taxpayers?
    Mr. PONSONBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, in view of the increased interest now taken in the Debates in this House?

    BRITISH DEBT (UNITED STATES).
    Mr. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the debt to the United States of America; and how much it has been reduced since 1st April, 1922?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The principal of the debt owing to the United States Government amounts to-day to $4,135,818,358; in addition, accrued interest amounting to $611,018,685 remains unpaid. Since 1st April, 1922, $30,500,000 of principal has been repaid in addition to $101,525,000 mainly for interest. It remains to be settled whether any part of the last payment of $50,000,000 on this head, made on the 15th instant, is to be regarded as repayment of capital.
    Mr. WISE: Is the interest at the rate of 5 per cent.?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I shall want notice of that question.

    INCOME TAX (COLLECTION).
    Mr. FRANK GRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage of net Income Tax collected which is absorbed by the expense of collecting all Income Tax and repayment of Income Tax collected at the source, in many cases including the cost to Departments solely concerned with Income Tax and the additional cost to other Departments, such as the Post Office, affected by this work; and whether His Majesty's Government is prepared at an early date to initiate legislation simplifying the collection of Income Tax and terminating the system of collecting at the source?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It is not possible to apportion the total cost of collection of Inland Revenue duties between the various duties, of which Income Tax is but one, nor is it feasible to isolate the expenditure which arises in connection with the tax which is collected at the source. Any departure from the system of collection at the source would not only seriously endanger the productivity of the tax, but would complicate rather than simplify its collection, and would entail considerably more expenditure.
    Mr. GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the total cost without apportioning it?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I will see whether I can.

    PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the names of the persons, at present in receipt of perpetual pensions from the State, and the respective amounts paid in each case?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The only perpetual pensions now being paid are the Rodney pension and the Nelson pension. The hon. Member will find details of the recipients and the amounts on page 44 of the Finance Accounts, 1921–22.

    AUSTRIA (BRITISH LOAN).
    Mr. MURCHISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer where the Gobelin tapestries, given in security against the last British loan to Austria, now are: and what is their approximate value?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Gobelin tapestries in question are in Vienna. From the nature of the case, it is impossible to-assign a value to such an unique work of art as these tapestries, but it is stated to be very considerably in excess of the amount of the loan.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it understood that the last British loan will be absorbed in the new British loan?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The next question, I think, deals with that.
    Mr. MURCHISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to renew the last British loan to Austria which is due for repayment in February next?
    Mr. BALDWIN: This loan is repayable out of the proceeds of the guaranteed loans to be raised by the Austrian Government under the League of Nations scheme. In agreement with the other lending nations concerned, His Majesty's Government have signified their willingness to extend the date of repayment, so that it may be made in instalments out of successive issues of the guaranteed loans.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is that loan coming before the House of Commons before we adjourn?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Bill, I think, will be circulated in a few days.

    ANGLO-PEKSIAN OIL COMPANY.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the advisability of soiling all shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company now held by His Majesty's Government, in view of the considerable profit which is obtainable, and seeing that such a sale would remove a possible source of friction and suspicion between rival interests and at the same time prove of benefit to the taxpayer?
    Mr. BALDWIN: This question has, of course, been considered.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is no sale of shares which imperils our voting control over the company?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That, of course, will be borne in mind.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the result of that consideration?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I think I would rather not.

    GOVERNMENT PRINTING (HARROW WORKS).
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what class of Government printing is carried out at the Harrow printing works which results in a profit?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The principal Government printing carried out at the Harrow works is as follows:

    Secret Codes.

    Confidential work for the Admiralty.

    The Post Office Telephone Directories.

    The Post Office Guide. The Trade Marks Journal.

    Pension Warrants.

    Miscellaneous bookwork for various Government Departments.

    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: Is it proposed to keep on these Harrow printing works?
    Mr. BALDWIN: A question was answered on Monday on that subject stating that the provisional period of three years, for which these works were established, will expire next year, and then the subject will come up again.

    ALIEN IMMIGRANTS.
    Mr. PENNYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the desirability of imposing a head tax on alien immigrants with a view to restricting the influx into this country of undesirable pauper immigrants calculated to swell unemployment and to become a charge upon the rates; whether the Government will inquire into the conditions under which in the United States head money is imposed by that country upon aliens settling in America, and consider the adoption for Great Britain of similar conditions?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am not aware of any influx into this country of undesirable pauper immigrants, the provisions of the Aliens Order, 1920, being sufficient to prevent it. Suggestions for the imposition of a poll-tax on aliens arriving in the United Kingdom have been more than once carefully considered in all their aspects and in full view of the practice in America, and it has been decided that in the conditions of this country such a tax is unsuitable and impracticable.

    RATING ANOMALIES.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to deal with the anomalies of levying rates which are to-day in equitable in respect to their application in different parts of the country?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The Government have under consideration proposals for removing several of the existing anomalies in connection with the levying of local rates.

    DISPOSAL BOARD (SALES).
    Mr. HOUFTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the charges made by the firm of Rownson, Drew, and Clydesdale, of 225, Upper Thames Street, E.G., against the Disposal Board, particularly with regard to the sale of 150,000 tons of scrap brass at £24 6s. 8d. per ton, when the above firm held a contract for the same at £35 per ton; and will he grant an impartial inquiry into this and other transactions of the Disposal Board?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The charges made against the Disposal Board regarding the alleged loss on the sale of brass scrap were fully dealt with in a letter from the Chairman of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission, which appeared in the Press on the 8th September last. I share the view of my predecessor (a letter from whom was published in the Press on the 11th September last) that the allegation made as to this loss is untrue. The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. The accounts of the Disposal Board are audited by an officer of this House, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and any irregularities on matters requiring comment by him are brought before a Committee of this House, the Public Accounts Committee, and can be fully investigated there. I am satisfied that the Disposal Board has carried out an extremely difficult task in an efficient manner.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is it to be understood that the allegation made in this question is denied or accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—there is a specific allegation made?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps I had better read the words that I used: "The allegation made as to this loss is untrue."
    Mr. THOMSON: The allegation is not that there was a loss. The allegation is that a contract was made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a statement by contractors that a contract was made, and that that contract was broken. Is that correct?
    Mr. BALDWIN: May I tell my hon. Friend that there is a great deal connected with that matter that does not appear in this question? These are ex-parte statements, and there is a great deal not appearing in this question that would entirely alter the aspect of the whole case. Any irregularities that may be suggested can be investigated before the Public Accounts Committee.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE DEPOT, HARLESCOTT.
    Major Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the policy of His Majesty's Government as to
    900
    the vacant buildings in possession of the Royal Air Force depot at Harlescott, Salop; when they and the land they stand on are to be released for other uses; and for what purpose they have been retained hitherto?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): The depot at Harlescott is one of the Air stations which it is intended to retain as part of the permanent organisation of the Royal Air Force. The building accommodation and lands now included within this station are not surplus to requirements, and I therefore regret that they cannot be released for other purposes.

    EXPORT CREDITS SCHEME (LIVESTOCK).
    Mr. MURROUGH WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received representations from British agricultural interests asking that livestock for breeding purposes should be included in the Export Credits Scheme and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS (Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department): This matter has received the careful consideration of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and of myself, and I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that we have decided that livestock for breeding purposes raised in this country may properly be included within the scope of the Export Credits Scheme. I have, therefore, issued the necessary instructions to the Export Credits Department of the Department of Overseas Trade, to whom application should be made by agriculturists desirous of obtaining credits in connection with the export of livestock.
    Mr. ROYCE: Will the hon. Gentleman say why other forms of agricultural produce should not be included?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Gentleman will let me know what particular forms of agricultural produce he desires to have exported under the provisions of the Export Credits Scheme the Board of Trade will consider it.
    Mr. ROYCE: Potatoes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Include the landlords!"]

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
    Sir C. WARNERasked the Prime Minister what decision the Government have come to in regard to the House of Lords decision on the Rent Restrictions Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A small Cabinet Committee has been appointed to consider this subject, but it is impossible that their Report should be ready in time to enable it to be dealt with this Session. I have, however, no doubt that the result of the inquiry will convince the Government that legislation is required, and in that case the necessary legislation will be carried out as early as possible next Session, and it will, of course, be retrospective.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman have appointed a Cabinet Committee in the event of the decision having been the other way?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Most certainly. If the decision had been for the benefit of the landlord in the same way as it had been for the benefit of the tenant, I should certainly have appointed a Committee.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Has any request been received from the tenants of property in this country for a Cabinet Committee of this kind?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should think the subject is one more easily dealt with when the Bill is introduced than by question and answer.
    Lieut.-Colonel NALL: In view of the chaotic condition that will arise between now and the time when the Report will be ready—[An HON. MEMBER: "And after!"]—is it possible to bring in a short Measure establishing a moratorium in the meantime?
    Mr. J. JONES: It is a crematorium you want?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have considered that, but it is my opinion that the announcement that I have just made will prevent what the hon. and gallant Gentleman anticipates.
    Sir C. WARNER: Will the Cabinet Committee inquire into the whole of the circumstances, not only to what extent
    902
    misunderstandings have happened in Scotland, but the question and difficulties of landlords and small occupiers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. This Committee is only to consider this very limited question. The other questions are also under the consideration of the Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take the Debate on the Address, and, after 11 o'clock, the Committee stage of the Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Financial Resolution.
On Tuesday we shall take the Lords Amendments to the Irish Bills, if any; the Debate on the Address, which I hope will be concluded, and, after 11 o'clock, the Report stage of the Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Financial Resolution.
On Wednesday we shall take the Safeguarding of Industries (No. 2) Order, 1922 (Gas Mantles); the Second Reading of the Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Bill; and the Second Reading of the Canadian Cattle Bill.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: When will the Austrian Bill be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is included in the Trade Facilities Bill.
Captain W. BENN: Is it going to be the practice of this Government to take Money Resolutions after 11 o'clock, and why is it not possible to discuss them at a reasonable hour?
The PRIME MINISTER: No one knows better than my hon. and gallant Friend the necessity of time. The absolutely necessary programme will now keep us much later than was intended.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would it not be better to deal with the financial business earlier and leave the Debate on the Address to the small hours of the morning?
The PRIME MINISTER: If I proposed to do that, I am afraid the Members of the Labour party would be the first to object.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to raise a personal matter and ask the indulgence of the House while I explain it. I have, received a letter from the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Major Sir George Hamilton) and would like to read it to the House. It is dated the 29th November, 1922, and reads as follows:
"DEAR SIR,
You said last night—I quote from Hansard—'There have been lying statements made about this business. Yesterday a Member apologised to me for making untrue statements.' I quote my apology from the OFFICIAL REPORT. 'I understood that the deputation which went to Downing Street was led by the hon. Member. If I was wrong I withdraw, and most humbly apologise to him.' I have now made further inquiries, and I am informed that the deputation received by Mr. Lloyd George was led by you and five other Mayors—and while or after the late Prime Minister was receiving you a not took place (which I witnessed) of a serious nature. I never accused you of leading the riot, nor intended to, but I stated you led the deputation and proceesion of the unemployed and the riot followed. My statement was true, and you accepted an apology from me for a possible misunderstanding of what I had meant by my interpolation. I trust you will be more careful in referring in future to 'lying statements' and apologies for 'untrue statements.'
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) GEORGE C. HAMILTON."
I have looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I find that the Prime Minister was referring to a deputation which had gone to Downing Street and of which I was a member. I will quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"THE PRIME MINISTER: I had in my mind the recollection of a very serious riot caused by the unemployed near Downing Street. I thought it was quite possible that something of the same sort would occur again.
MAJOR SIR GEORGE HAMILTON: Led by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).
MR. LANSBTTRY: On a point of Order. I have never led any men in a riot of any sort or kind.
HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw!
MR. SPEAKER: After that display, I am certain that the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham will withdraw what he said.
SIR G. HAMILTON: Of course I will. I understood that the deputation which went to Downing Street was led by the hon. Member. If I was wrong, I withdraw and most humbly apologise to him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1922; col. 402, Vol. 169.]
My own statement on 28th November, 1922, was as follows:
"MR. LANSBURY: There have been lying statements made about this business. Yesterday a Member apologised to me for making untrue statements that I had been bringing these men up to Whitehall. The hon. Member says that I am responsible …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1922; col. 650, Vol. 159.]
I only want to say on the whole business that I understood the hon. and gallant Member to charge me with leading a riot, and I think the House thought so at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what I understood. As the matter went through, I accepted the hon. and gallant Member's apology on the understanding that it was for that matter he was apologising. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] Then I received this letter. I want to make it quite clear to the House that, although I hold very strong views on social, economic and other questions, and I want to express them, I do not wish to say even an unkind word about anyone who disagrees with me. Had I known that the hon. Member was only referring to that deputation, although I was not the leader of the deputation, I should have got up, and said that I misunderstood him. I unreservedly withdraw any sort of imputation which my language may have conveyed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  KING'S SPEECH.

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
    [THIRD DAY.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [23rd November],
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
    MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
    Question again proposed.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words
    "But regret that, in face of unexampled unemployment, largely the result of four years of mistaken policy, for which the Government as the dominant party in the late Coalition is responsible, there is no proposal for an adequate or equitable treatment of the victims of that policy, including full recognition of what is entirely a national obligation, nor any indication of a change to enable our European customers to buy our goods again and so restore international trade and stabilise international exchange."
    In every Speech from the Throne for many years past there has been some reference to unemployment, and the earlier references promised attention to the matter, but the scantiest of all the references to this all-absorbing subject is contained in the Speech from the Throne which is now before the House. The trouble of unemployment has become increasingly acute even in the early days of this Session. The Question Paper has teemed with inquiries, and answers have been given by Ministers all bearing testimony to the growth of the trouble and its alarming costliness to the country. Take only as an instance one question on the Order Paper relating to the borough of Middlesbrough. The information in the question showed that the weekly cost in that town falling upon the local rates for the maintenance of the unemployed was £6,500 per week.
    4.0 P.M.
    That may be multiplied by an alarming number, and the total figures may be
    944
    found published in the papers this morning, showing not only that 1,500,000 people of this country are receiving some assistance in the way of unemployment benefit, but that a large number of them are actually on the rates receiving some form of help through the Poor Law or local authorities. Many of these authorities, not only burdened with heavy rates, but faced with the hopelessness of the outlook and with ever-increasing troubles, are distracted with their tasks. I am almost loath to refer to a subject which I suppose the Prime Minister regards as being irrevocably closed, namely, that of his action in refusing to meet the leaders of the unemployed who have marched to this city. We need express no approval of that method to which in despair large masses of the unemployed have been driven. Though we need not approve it, Members, if their imagination can be stretched so far, might quite well ask themselves, if they were in the position of the unemployed, to what length or resort they might go in the hope of placing their case in the proper quarter and seeking some statement from the highest Minister in the land. What I regret i6 not that the Prime Minister has announced some change in method or policy on Departmental questions, but that, unfortunately, he should have chosen the unemployed as the first on which to try this change. It is very unfortunate that the change was not tried upon others, for the truth is that unemployment is not a Departmental question. Are we to assume that cither the Minister of Health or the Minister of Labour has any definite Cabinet authority to make any statement in reply to questions addressed to him by any kind of deputation?
    I do not believe, for instance, that even a generous Division in the City of Glasgow would have sent the Prime Minister to this House had he told the electors of that city that his first act upon the question of unemployment would be to refuse to meet a deputation of the unemployed. I see that the Prime Minister is to meet representatives of the miners, and I hope that some good result will accrue from that meeting. I see that he has met or is to meet representatives of the great railway interests. These, indeed, are much more Departmental questions than the general question of unemployment. This line of inclusion and exclusion does create the

    945
    impression among the unemployed that the Prime Minister felt that he could afford to ignore men of the very poorest class whose patience would be exhausted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am speaking of the impression created. [An HON. MEMBER: "By whom?"] By the act of the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister did at least make some allusion to this greatest of all questions in his election speeches. He described it as one of the greatest evils. I think the country might very well have expected, as indeed it did expect, much more of a statement than the Prime Minister made on the problem in any of his speeches. I recall that in one speech which occupied nearly four columns of print the question was dismissed with three lines. That is not putting this great question in its proper proportion in relation to any of the other matters which were the subject of public discussion. I do not see why even Earl Birkenhead should have commanded so much attention on the part of the Prime Minister in his speeches as compared with the slight references that were made to this problem of unemployment.
    There is no improvement in the situation. Although the figures show some reduction in the recorded number of those officially classed as unemployed, we should deceive ourselves if we were to conclude that that reduction in figures proved that there was any considerable alleviation of the position. There is not. Why are the figures being reduced? One cause is that by Departmental action and by the limitations and restrictions imposed by recent legislation a considerable number have been prevented altogether from signing, or from entertaining any hope whatever of receiving any benefit if they did sign. The duration of unemployment aggravates the suffering which has to be endured, and, in regard to a later aspect of this question, which I am certain the Government will put before the House, I trust that that fact will be borne in mind. There are men who have been out of work more than a year, and many for eighteen months. I have heard of cases of men being unemployed for even longer than two years. It may be alleged or thought by some that it is their own fault, and that this is evidence of a state of malingering, but the answer to any conclusion of that kind is that the authorities have tightened up very much the regulations during the last
    946
    eighteen months, and the malingerer, the one who could have work if he would, is very easily detected, and there are very few, if any, of the men who are not honestly anxious for work, but quite unable to get it.
    I intend to put to the House what I think are the three most important aspects of this question. There is our conviction, as expressed in the terms of the Amendment, that international policy since the end of the War has been and is largely the cause of the great amount of unemployment from which we are suffering; there are the remedies, such as they are, which the Government have so far applied; and, finally, there are the provisions made to relieve those who are not able to get any kind of work either in the public opportunities which have been offered to them or by their own personal endeavours. The consequences of the international muddle have fallen with greatest severity upon this country, because it is the great exporting country. It is dependent upon a state of international prosperity and peace for the continued development of its trade and commerce. That policy has brought us no friends. Another has been wiped off the list in the last day or two. It has brought us neither finance nor trade. It has left us staggering under a debt, not only not reduced but, indeed, increased by that policy during the last year or two. Britain more than any other country stands to lose from a continuance of these international conflicts and this state of world unsettlement, which Ministers and Governments acting with other Ministers and Governments have largely caused. It may be said that all this is an accident and that it cannot be helped. Indeed, I think some apologists of the Government go so far, but surely, if the Government have anything to do with anything at all they must be answerable for the results of their policy and for the conduct of that policy. It is no defence to say that they cannot help it, that they did not foresee such issues, and that they have done their best. If that be their best, then their best has been a failure and is in no sense equal to the needs of an industrial nation like ours.
    The Prime Minister, in his election speeches, asked us to give some attention to the development of Empire trade. I agree, and I do not want to belittle in

    947
    any degree the assistance or the development of Empire trade, but it is a comparatively secondary consideration. [HON. MEMBEES: "No!"] I say that I do not belittle it, but set it side by side with that great world trade which a manufacturing nation like this must continue to do with other parts of the world, and it is indeed a minor consideration. Let me try to express myself in figures. At best, by developing our trade with the white part of our population within the Empire, we cannot hope to do business with more than between 15 and 20 million people. You must set against that the wisdom of trying to do business, not with 15 or 20 million people, but with between 300 and 400 million. That is the larger market that we must retain and develop to the fullest extent if we are going to maintain in full working order the great industries which have been built up in this country. As I say, I do not belittle in any sense the efforts that may be made to increase and develop trade with other parts of the Empire, but we are driven back, as a matter of commercial necessity, upon seeking a policy which will ensure for us great expansion and development of trade with those who are not within the Empire at all. Our policy under that head is further emphasized by the fact that shortly, perhaps in a few weeks, the Fourteenth Conference following upon the signing of the Versailles Treaty and the sustained failure of that Treaty to arrange the affairs of the world upon anything like a basis of either prosperity or peace is to take place. The Thirteenth Conference was, I think, at Genoa. We are to have the Fourteenth here in London. These Conferences have been in the nature of efforts to review an unworkable instrument and to try and make work that which will not work at all. I read in one of the speeches of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, made during the course of the Election, this extraordinary admission:
    "There is no doubt that everyone of us cherished illusions after the War that more could be got than is available and that it would be much easier to get."
    I cannot regard that as showing any statesmanship or foresight or knowledge of the problem. Many did not cherish illusions. They said three or four years ago what was certain to be the consequences of efforts to settle affairs on the
    948
    basis of that Peace Treaty, and they were denounced as pro-Germans for not harbouring the delusions which have sustained Ministers in their futile efforts, during the last three or four years. The Foreign Secretary went on to say that two years had been spent in discussing; the subject of reparation and they did not seem to get much forwarder because the situation was always changing. But why is it always changing? It is Ministers themselves who produce the changed situation. You are bound to have the situation changing when you have no fixed policy and no definite set of principles which harmonise with the economic needs of a great exporting country like ours. Unlimited millions were at first demanded from Germany as reparation: indeed that was the rallying cry in the Election of 1918. From that time to this the demand has been falling. The descent has been from the first figure in the region of £50,000.000,000, down to £22,000,000,000, then to £11,000,000,000, and then to less than £6,000,000,000. The latest figure publicly mentioned by Mr. Churchill in one of his Dundee speeches was somewhere about £2,000,000,000. Surely Ministers ought to take a more serious view of this question-of reparation, and not play with it in such a feeble manner. It is about time they made a sustained effort to come to an arrangement with Germany in order to have some settlement on the basis either of agreement or arbitration with that country. I may repeat to-day what I said more than two years ago, that in our view there will be no settlement until one is reached by a process of arbitration assented to by both sides, or by a process of agreement into which Germany herself will enter That has from the beginning been the principle underlying the policy which has been outlined on behalf of this side of the House.
    Let me express my great regret at finding that, so far as the Prime Minister has referred to the future principles and lines of foreign policy, he bases it on hopes of improvement in the international situation. I understand the Prime Minister's aim internationally is that we shall work with France and Italy. I want to work with France and Italy, but not alone with those countries. I would not select their friendship in a manner which will exclude the friendship of other nations. It is out of this process of selecting friendships that great wars grow: such a policy is

    949
    responsible for conflicting interests, political, territorial, economic, and dynastic, and all these conflicting interests are sure to be sustained and developed by returning to the principles of foreign policy which were practised in the years before the War. If we single out a few friends, it means that we begin the process of training the nations of the world for another great fight in some future year. I knew that is the last thing the Prime Minister would deliberately desire, and therefore I appeal to him to harmonise to his own wish a changed policy which will make world friendships more secure than they have been made by the policy so far followed.
    My view is that our industrial and commercial conditions are largely attributable to our policy on the question of reparation, to our attitude towards Russia with its possibilities of great markets, and, further, to our complete failure to handle the situation as it should have been handled in relation to Turkey. Turkey has now trampled our Treaty in the mud, having secured 10 times as much as she would have been glad to obtain three years ago. Last, but not least, our troubles in relation to industry have been, due to our failure to retain the friendship of that great part of our Empire in which more than 300,000,000 people dwell. I refer to India. Lancashire has suffered terribly from this aspect of our foreign policy, because by reason of the people of India declining to trade with us, the cotton mills of Lancashire have been rendered idle, and that idleness is reflected in the fact that less cotton is obtained from America. The whole trade of the world is linked up, and if by one political act we fail to retain the goodwill of any section of our Empire, it alienates the trade on which our commercial prosperity depends.
    In the face of these political failures, we have been forced to look for some internal redress, either work or maintenance. I am glad to see that one or two quite responsible and even popular newspapers are now beginning to turn a kindly eye on the wisdom of preferring work to maintenance. In one reputable journa.1 this morning the Labour party is solemnly advised to give a preference to work as against maintenance. Although it has always been true of the
    950
    Members on these benches that they have been among the first to put forward sensible proposals of that kind, they have been always the last to get any credit for doing so. Still, if we go on a little longer preaching preference for work we shall possibly do something to convert those who have been opposing us on this question all these years. Our first claim is for work. But if the country fails adequately to provide it, what are we to do? We dare not let men die. There is a danger not only to the men themselves, but to the State in any such attitude as that. If private employers fail in their functioning to find work, the State must not step aside from its duty, and so far as private employers are unable to absorb the masses of the unemployed a public duty arises, and that duty can only be met by the State undertaking to remedy the defects of the private employer. I am speaking within the ambit of the present system when I say that so far as men cannot get work in the private market there is an obligation on the State to provide useful and necessary work for those who are anxious to do it.
    The volume of work which has been found hitherto has been miserably small. I think it might be expressed in the proportion of one in 15. Taking the whole period of this acute state of depression I am certain that not more than one in 15 have been found work by the joint efforts of the Government and of the local authorities. Would it not be better to go further, and absorb as many as possible by undertaking other kinds of useful service. Against that view there are those who consider that to the extent to which you find work you are pushing other people out of the possibility of a job. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnainara) holds the view that by putting people to the manufacture of articles the cost is made inordinately high, thereby preventing the goods being sold on the market at a profit. That, I take it, to be the argument of my right hon. Friend and, indeed, of the Government. No doubt that process involves the incurring of some loss, but what do you do now I You incur a loss which is all loss. You pay money out and get nothing at all in return for it. Far short of setting up what are termed Government factories or State workshops,

    951
    great employing and employment undertakings could be conducted by the Government and managed by the State and local authorities jointly in exchange for the enormous sums which are now being paid without a stroke of work being done in return. The money which is now being paid out in various parts of the country brings nothing in return, not a stroke of work is done as a result, and that, I submit, is a very bad policy. Some Members of the Government call it business. I call it folly. It is a policy of complete waste, and I suggest that a much better plan would be to pay a little more and get something in return. Instead of giving a man 30s. for nothing in the form of a dole or benefit, it would pay the State to give him in wages twice that amount and get a week's work from him. It would, at any rate, yield some wealth for the country. It would not be a complete loss as at present.
    If it be right to provide work for some of the unemployed as has been done— and no doubt that will be the boast of the Labour Minister who will show how much work has been provided—I daresay he has his figures with him—if it is right to boast of having found work for, say, 100,000 men, how can you possibly reject the claim that work should be found for many times that number? Are we to rail in organisation in periods of peace only? Surely we can organise, direct, and plan schemes to make the best use of labour, as we did during the War, instead of allowing it to go to waste day by day as it now does.
    I therefore reject the view, and Members for whom I speak on this side of the House unanimously reject it, that men should remain out of work unless they can get someone in the private market to employ them at a profit. That is not a doctrine which we can any longer tolerate. Apart from any resort to State workshops, and the manufacture of purely commercial articles for sale abroad or in this country, enormous opportunities have been left unused, and are still unused. Non-commercial work could be found upon that which has offered the greatest of all our opportunities, and upon which there has been the greatest waste of chances, namely, housing; and upon canals, parks, afforestation, municipal buildings, the construction and repair of bridges, public
    952
    works, open-air swimming baths, recreation grounds, playing fields, light railways for the help of agriculture, slum clearances, the building of institutes in rural areas. These are not to be laughed at, for, until rural life is made a little more tolerable, until more of the social attractions of the day are provided for the men in the country districts, they will be less inclined to stop in them, and, during the time that they do stop in them, they will be less valuable citizens than they could be made by bringing to them opportunities for greater education and self-training than at present they can receive.
    The greatest, however, of all these opportunities, in my judgment, is housing, for that is an urgent human need. Whatever can wait, that cannot. Our Debates of the last two days, and particularly of yesterday, have shown us what are the frightful moral and physical consequences of a neglected housing system, of the failure to supply even one-third of the number of houses which it was solemnly promised would be the high charge and duty of the Government more than four years ago. We are faced with the most horrifying consequences, moral and physical, of millions of our people having to live under conditions scarcely better than the conditions of beasts in many of the populous centres of thickly-crowded Britain. Let me try to reduce this wastage to terms of money. An answer was given yesterday by the Minister of Labour, showing that in the building trade alone, in this country, there are now unemployed 118,739 people. And what is the cost of that? My right hon. Friend gave the figure. The monthly cost in benefit alone was £260,000. That is apart from the sum received by these men in local relief by way of the grants that they must get from the local authorities. That sum of £260,000 a month is being paid to men who are ready and able to build the houses that are wanted, but not a brick is laid. This is not only a stupid Government in regard to using the resources of the nation and the money of the public; it is a Government whose generosity is so misdirected that I think we are fully entitled to demand that not for another day should any money be wasted in paying men who can build houses without those men being

    953
    required, under proper direction, to supply the public with the houses that they need.
    Let, me give the figure in even a larger form. It is true, incidentally, that every £l paid away in this manner, without bringing back anything in return, means future increased taxation. This money, in some way, is coming from those who work. Those who are in employment, in business and commerce, find their quota of this monthly £260,000. What we are suggesting is that we should have something to show in exchange for that £260,000. May I put it to the House in exactly the manner in which it has been put to the country more than once, in conference and in the Press, by Mr. Hicks, the President of the men's Building Trades Federation? He says that in a year the men in his industry—the building trade generally—have received not less than £10,000,000 for doing nothing. The country cannot afford it. For this monthly sum which was mentioned in my right hon. Friend's answer yesterday, had it been properly used in wages, we could have got at least 600 houses a month, but we get not one. It was, I think, during the Election campaign that the Prime Minister spoke of what he called the lunacy of a capital levy. I will put my comment in a question—to what kind of political asylum should men be sent who every month are squandering money in this manner without getting a single stroke of work from men who are willing and able to do it?
    It may be, of course, that you cannot find work for every man. I agree, but that is no reason why you should not make some effort successfully to find some men work. If you cannot do everything, that is not a reason for not doing anything at all. The same capacity which served this country in the War in directorship and organisation should now be used in face of this pressing necessity of the people in these years of peace. So far as I can gather from the allusions of the Prime Minister to future Government policy —I can only, as it were, guess at it; I have no information beyond the comments in the Press, though I daresay in the course of the early afternoon something will be revealed to the House of what is intended—so far as I gather, it is the intention of the Government to expand somewhat and
    954
    improve upon those provisions for insurance benefit which former Governments have laid down. I hope that neither the Prime Minister nor his colleague at the Ministry of Labour will be tempted into any approval of the policy of directing insurance upon the lines of separate industries. This, above all else, is a national obligation. It ought not to be thrown back upon the separate industries in different parts of the country. If that be done, you will have the difficulty of deciding where one industry begins and where it ends; but, worse than that, you will have the more favoured industries in which work is constant and which are less-subject to the evils of unemployment— you will have those industries favoured both by a state of security in work and by exemption from the obligation of payment. On the other hand, you would throw upon the classes least able to bear it the heaviest possible burden, so that the casual worker or the general worker, the men in millions in certain of the other less favoured industries, would clearly have to bear the heavier burden whilst being least equal to bearing anything of the kind. Insurance on something like real national lines for an abnormal condition of unemployment is well enough. It did serve a purpose in the days when a man was out of work for, say, only a week or two, or a few weeks, between two long periods of employment. It serves in normal conditions, when the percentage of unemployment is low, but for such a state of things as now faces us it is no remedy at all. It does no more than relieve without alleviating.
    There are other evil consequences. Men out of work for a year, or 18 months, or two years, suffer considerable physical and moral deterioration. They are less efficient men for their jobs than they were when their idleness began. Unhappy is the fate of large numbers of the young men who served in the War, who came back, and who have not even yet got a job—whose days of apprenticeship have been completely destroyed, who have been reduced to the level of the casual worker, and who, after this long period of idleness, are scarcely fit for that, for lack of proper physical training. To apply insurance, therefore, to a problem having these features is to apply something that will not serve as a cure at all. This is a state of trade famine, and you cannot relieve a famine by just giving occasional

    955
    doles, or keeping people not only in a state of idleness, but in a state which in itself is a further incentive to indolence. The very worst sides of human nature are being encouraged and sustained by these excessive periods of idleness which are being suffered. A condition of insurance on the basis of industry, however clearly it might apportion he responsibilities of the employed, would allow a class which is well able to pay altogether to escape its obligations. I have read that in this country so far this year 17 millionaires have died. A large number of men possessing very great wealth, fortunate and favoured, would, by such a plan of insurance on the basis of industry, be able altogether to escape their obligations. The finance, then, of that scheme will not stand any examination.
    What are we to say as to what the Government has already done in relation to the amount of benefit provided? This last aspect that I want to touch upon is, of course, the one which most interests the individual unemployed worker. Bereft of an opportunity for a job, he, -naturally, wants to know what a grateful country can do for him. What the Government did do about two years ago was to reduce the benefit, which stood at 20s., to 15s., and at the same time it fixed a sum of 1s. a week as the amount to be paid to an unemployed father to enable him to maintain for a week his child of 16 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "There was 5s. for the wife!"] I have that in mind, but it is not a figure of which I think any boast should be made. The figures now are 15s. for the unemployed man, 5s. for his wife, and 1s. for each child; and I seriously ask whether it is intended to exceed or to continue any such low, exhausting level of payment of benefit as this. The winter is facing these depressed and troubled people. I saw that the late Prime Minister, in one of his speeches during the election campaign, referred to the difficulties of the "poor man's banker," and to the fact that the pawnbroker found his premises choked with the household goods of many of the poorer people. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour is aware that many months ago the pawnbrokers of Leeds, and many other places as well, solemnly passed resolutions not to take in pawn any more soldiers' medals. That is the unhappy state to which many men have
    956
    been reduced who valiantly took their part in defence of their country in the years of war. Are we then to allow these people to remain at this starvation level in the absence of work being found for them, for the longer they have to maintain themselves on these sums, the less has the value of these sums been to them. They have exhausted their household resources. Whatever they had in the way of small sums saved is completely gone, and if is cruel to expect men to maintain themselves on anything like the figure which has been fixed as the amount of benefit provided by the State, and if for no other reason than this it is advisable to raise the charge upon the State, in order to make it more easy for the local authorities to bear their share.
    It was said by the late Prime Minister, when appealing for national support more than four years ago, that we had this solemn duty, that we had to take care that in the period of dislocation, during which plans were being worked out to provide remunerative work, there should be no privations endured. These figures guarantee privation. The 15s., the 5s., the Is., and the other small amounts which can be received are a guarantee of the very condition which the late Prime Minister said never should be suffered by the mass of the people of this country. Unemployment pay can be increased without any increase whatever on national taxation. Many firms and many States draw upon their future credit. This is a big human problem. It is not an academic consideration. It is no good talking at election times about being willing and anxious to make a contribution towards the solution of the greatest of all questions if, having come here, hon. Members console themselves with the reflection that the country cannot afford to do the things for which we are pleading. This period of depression clearly will pass away. It may be a year or two, it may be five years, but, whatever the period, it is cruelty further to impose now upon those who have so long suffered such privations as their present allowances compel them to endure. And so, if there is no better suggestion, let us look to the days when we shall be in a more solvent state, for have we no credit to pawn I Can the country not get now the wherewithal to supply the necessary millions for the purpose of increasing those sums and bringing the poor people

    957
    at least to a level equal to that at which they stood about two years ago. Two years ago, on £1 a week, and with their personal and private resources, they could carry on, but they cannot now, and a state of acute starvation is being endured by many of our British families who have to try to live upon these sums. The last Parliament failed in its duty on this great problem. This Parliament has made a boast of it that it is going to succeed. To-day is perhaps the moment when it should announce its determination at least to succeed by bringing in something like Christmas hope and brightness into many homes which will be dark unless this figure is increased, and, if I cannot succeed in anything else, I hope my appear! to the right hon. Gentleman under that head will not fail, and that there will be a response in the way of a larger sum to those who are compelled to remain out of work.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): This is the first occasion on which I have the privilege of addressing this House as Minister in charge of a Department, and that the difficult and responsible Department of the Ministry of Labour, and I hope it will not be misunderstood if I ask for the consideration of the House. May I, at the same time, tender the assurance that it will be my constant endeavour to devote myself without stint to the service of the House and to every Member of it. The right hon. Gentleman has moved his Amendment. It is very wide in its terms. I have no reason to complain of that, or of the tone and temper of his speech. In fact, I think it constitutes a valuable contribution to our discussions on this subject if only for one reason, and that is that he began his speech by turning our thoughts in the direction in which I am sure they have got to be turned, namely, abroad. We are a great exporting nation, and our trade, and the future of our trade, must depend very largely on international conditions. Incidentally, I am rather sorry for the references the right hon. Gentleman made to one of our great dependencies—India—and I rather doubt whether the aspect of the matter, as he described it, is the correct one. But let that pass. I cannot go' with him, of course, in many of his suggestions. I hardly think he will expect me to go all the way with him. Bunyan's brother, Pliable, was, I think, a pretty indifferent
    958
    pilgrim, and I am quite sure he would have made a wretched Minister of Labour. But on one aspect of the question I am in wholehearted accord with the right hon. Gentleman; that is in his outspoken and sincere sympathy with those who are suffering from the paralysis of unemployment under which we are labouring. I am sure there is no one of us, there is no English man or woman who would not use every endeavour in his power to alleviate and, if possible, find a cure for the evils of unemployment and the distress and misery which result from it.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Mac-namara) in his forcible speech last Friday —and I should like to thank him for his courteous references to myself—told us rightly that what makes the tragedy of the present situation is the fact that the agony is so long drawn out. Private savings, trade union benefits, friendly society help have all been spent, and in spite of that fact the burden is being borne with a courage and patience which is beyond words. I was in the North the other day, and I accosted a man on the street corner who was evidently suffering, as the doctors would say, from malnutrition. I asked him where he had been working. He gave the name of a workshop which I knew had been, in fact, closed down for 18 months. Ho had been out of work—because I checked the facts —for the most of that time. I asked him if he was receiving the unemployed benefit, and I received this answer:
    "No. I will not take the dole and somehow I will get on without it."
    I think a man must be hard-hearted who is not visibly affected by courage like that. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell told us correctly that for two years after the Armistice trade was good and the unemployment figures were, low. Then we ran into a storm period in the autumn of 1920. The figures ran up to the maximum in June, 1921, when there were over '2,000,000 wholly unemployed. They have been going down. In February last they had gone down to 1,750,000 and in September to 1,250,000 or a very little over. With the oncoming of winter they have risen to 1,379,000. That is to be expected with the seasonal variation of employment. But in spite of that, I believe slowly, terribly slowly, if you will, but still slowly and steadily, the unemployment

    959
    curve is improving. People often talk as if the unemployment crisis was confined to this country. As a matter of fact, many nations in the world are suffering from the same difficulty as we are ourselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is no consolation!"] I daresay it is not, but it shows how difficult is the problem of dealing with it. In other countries—the statistical basis of the figures is not a very satisfactory one because their compilations are somewhat different—still, in neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland the figure of the proportion of unemployment is a good deal higher than in this country. Similarly, though there are no universal figures for America, in the highly industrialised State of Massachusetts you find the same thing, the figure being up at 19 and 24 at periods when our comparable figures were never higher than 17. It is also often forgotten that whatever the country may be where the suffering is taking place, and whatever the party may be which is trying to handle it, no panacea has in fact yet been discovered.
    5.0 P.M.
    I read with great interest, as I always do, a weekly review a week go, not unconnected, I believe, so rumour goes, with the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb)—and may I say how much we shall all welcome his knowledge and experience in our Debates. In that article suggestions were made, of course, that the Government was to blame— that is common form: no one minds that —but that a remedy could be found, and the author of the article buoyed up my hopes. I ran through it with avidity and when I got to the end I found that relief work, electrification, foreign trade development were the remedies he suggested —all things which the last Government, which probably this Government, which indeed any Government that is attempting to deal with the problem must invoke. I listened with great interest to the hard-hitting and forceful speech made by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Muir) last Friday. He suggested that the remedy which he and his friends would propose was a new social order, and he went on to tell us that he and his friends could only lay the foundations of the new social order. He implied, in fact I think he stated, that it must be a matter of time, and of considerable time. May
    960
    I reply to my hon. Friends who take that view that the unemployment problem is an urgent one? It will not wait—— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!".] Will my hon. Friends opposite let me finish the sentence? It will not wait for the time occupied in the construction of a new social order, and I would appeal to them, with all their energy, with all their fire, and with all their knowledge of business conditions, that under the present circumstances, as facts are now, they should give us all the help they can in the solution of this problem.
    Many of my hon. Friends opposite are familiar with the workings of the International Labour organisation at Geneva. I have no doubt I shall be pressed before long about certain Conventions and Recommendations made there. In the last two years the question of unemployment has been discussed at Geneva on two occasions. This year, after a very elaborate report, the Conference decided—let hon. Members remember that it was a Conference at which the employers and workers from practically every civilised State were represented—not that they had discovered a panacea, but that they would go on studying the subject. Last year, when a Debate was being inaugurated on the same topic, the proposal was that we should find our remedy in the pooling of the natural resources of the world. I am not sure how long that would take or what remedy it would afford. I intervened in the Debate to explain what was being attempted in this country on a humble, if you like, but still a businesslike line—the numbers employed on arterial roads, our big insurance scheme, running into many millions of pounds, and our efforts to stimulate foreign trade. When the Debate was over people came to me and said that they had listened with amazement and incredulity to what we were doing in this country. They said: "You cannot mean pounds sterling, you meant francs. The figures are too enormous." After a very short time the chief engineer from France was sent over here, I believe as a result of that discussion, to ascertain whether what I then explained in regard to arterial roads was really the fact, and I believe he expressed himself surprised at what had taken place.
    No panacea has yet been discovered for unemployment. The Amendment speaks

    961
    of the last four years. I do not want to make any party issue of this. To some extent I am in accord with the views of the Mover of the Amendment. This is a problem for all of us. It is a national problem, and I ask the House to listen while I give a short outline of the efforts made so far to deal with the matter. It shall only be an outline, but unless I explain what has been done in the past it will be very difficult to make intelligible the measures which the Government now propose. It is often said that nothing has been done. That is not only untrue, but it is cruel, because it tends to engender despair. What ha6 been done? It is perhaps a little difficult to make this Government responsible for what took place four years before it was born. [HON. MEMBERS: "The same old story! "and" You were in the Government!"] I was not in the Government four years ago. I will relate what took place for some portion of that period. During the first two years of that, period, when trade was good, there was expended by the State £62,000,000 in connection with employment for those who were either demobilised or put out of work as a result of the Armistice. Of that sum, £40,000,000 was expended in connection with ex-service men and £22,000,000 in connection with civilians.
    Apart from that, and to commence with what I call the storm period—November, 1920–the three main lines of our efforts were relief works, unemployment insurance, and the stimulation of foreign and home trade. I will take these three lines as briefly as I can. With regard to relief work, the Ministry of Transport had to bear the main burden. The capable officials of that Department put up at once a far-sighted programme. It is obvious that the development of the motor-car, and particularly of the commercial car, is putting an increasing strain on our existing roads, and particularly is that so at the exits and entrances of our big cities, where there are often bottle-necks which in fact strangle traffic. Bearing that in mind, the Ministry of Transport have had in hand for the last two years a big scheme for re-modelling 100 miles of road at the different exits and entrances of London. In that scheme they have had the co-operation of the London County Council and the Kent and Essex County Councils. There are similar schemes
    962
    either in operation or contemplation for different parts of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether hon. Members have any conception of the way in which the whole road scheme of Outer London is being remodelled. It is being done by unskilled labour taken from the Employment Exchanges. Ex-service men are given preference. What I value particularly in the whole of the scheme is that the reports of the inspectors with regard to the work comment on the high character of the work and the very excellent standard of product that results.
    Mr. McENTEE: I hope that some of your friends will listen to that.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Done at sweating wages.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I will deal with the issue of wages at any time that my hon. Friend likes, but I would rather make my speech in my own way. I will undertake not to interrupt him when he intervenes in the Debate. So good is the product of the labour that, while in the old days relief work only came within about 33 per cent, of the value of ordinary labour, this work on these arterial roads is re ported to be within 20 or even 10 per cent, of the normal value, and in some cases the output is equivalent to that of ordinary labour used to the work.
    Mr. McENTEE: Pay full wages, then.
    Sir M. BARLOW: There is a period of apprenticeship for those who are not accustomed to the work, during which 75 per cent, is paid, and when the man becomes skilled at the work the full rate is paid. If a man is already accustomed to the work, the full rate is paid to him at the start. These are the regulations, and if my hon. Friends will give me any instances to the contrary I will look into them. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the interpretation of the regulations that is wrong."] The finances are arranged by a contribution usually up to 50 per cent. During the two years, £14,000,000 worth of work has been undertaken, and on the average 25,000 men have been engaged. At the beginning of this winter 20,000 men were actually at the work. In addition to that, there have been the ordinary road repair and maintenance works, running into the enormous figure of £20,000,000. Some 20,000 men have been engaged on that work, above what would usually have been employed.

    963
    Let me take other Government Departments. First the Ministry of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech referred to afforestation. That is naturally one of the first things that occurs to everybody's mind when devising relief work. Drainage, afforestation and, in this rural connection, light railways, have been pressed forward during the last two years, and a sum of something like £1,250,000 has been expended. During the worst time, at the height of the winter, something like 12,000 men have been employed. The other Departments, especially the Service Departments and the Post Office, have combined in the national effort by accelerating some work or by providing alternative work. This has represented something like £3,000,000, and 10,000 men have been employed at different times. But the great machine which has been employed for securing schemes of this character in co-operation with the local authorities has been the Unemployment Grants Committee, known as the Lord St. Davids Committee, and I should like, on behalf of the Government, to express to the Chairman (Lord St. Davids) our thanks for the great energy and business ability which he has devoted by that Committee. That Committee has worked by means of two schemes, first of all, what is known as the 60 per cent, of wages scheme, and, secondly, by assistance by way of interest where loans have been raised for local work. There are different arrangements in regard to interest according as the loan is for a revenue-producing or a non-revenue-producing scheme.
    The local authorities have co-operated loyally and patriotically with the State in this work. Some 560 local authorities have put in applications, and 1,787 loan schemes have been approved. The capital involved has been, in connection with the 60 per cent, of wages schemes, £10,250,000, and in connection with the loans scheme £19,000,000, or, roughly, £30,000,000 in jill. The schemes have varied very much in their character, from providing baths to arranging for burial grounds, and from sewerage works to swimming pools. Probably 200,000 men have been engaged during the two years for a longer or shorter period of time. At the beginning of this winter 30,000 men were employed on these various schemes. This pro-
    964
    gramme constitutes the first main lines of effort. Then comes the second main line, the Unemployment Insurance Act.
    Mr. CLYNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the point in regard to the figures a little clearer. Am I to understand that at any one time as many as 200,000 men were employed?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I was careful not to say that. [HON. MKMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I want to be perfectly fair with the House, and I am sure that my hon. Friends opposite will know that I desire that. It is very difficult to estimate these figures. The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell knows that as well as anybody. While I said that 200,000 men had been employed for longer or shorter periods, I was careful to state the number of men who were employed either at the beginning of this year or at the beginning of this winter. Now as to the Unemployment Insurance Act, I find myself in a difficulty with regard to the position taken up by the Mover of this Amendment. He said that we should secure work for insured persons and not a dole. Broadly put, I am in agreement, and I shall have a word to say on this before I sit down, but, having argued strongly against the dole under the Unemployment Insurance Act, my right hon. Friend now does not take the line of no dole, but he says that the dole is not big enough. I would like to know on which leg of the dilemma he wishes to stand I However, we shall not quarrel about it, because I do not want to get into a tangle. The whole question is much too serious. The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell said on Friday that the use of the word "dole" angered him, and it angers me.
    Captain O'GRADY: It was your friends who manufactured it.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I find it difficult to proceed while hon. Members are making interruptions, especially when they are so incorrect as to tempt me to answer them at every turn. The right hon. Gentleman referred to insurance by industry. The whole phrase represents an idea which is very much in the air just now, but when we look at the extent of the present scheme we see that in a sense we have insurance by industry at the moment, and I would ask the help of our friends, particularly our

    965
    friends of the Press, to make it known that the implication of the word "dole," which is that all the money comes from the State, is ludicrously untrue. It is surprising, in face of all the statements that have been made on the subject during the last two years, that so few-people are aware of the fact that unemployment benefit is not paid in its entirety by the State. At the beginning of the storm period in 1920 there was under the old limited scheme £22,000,000 in hand. That was subscribed by workers and employers with contributions from the State, on the basis of three-quarters from industry and one-quarter from the State. Furthermore, there is at the moment a loan of £14,500,000; but when that comes to be paid it will be repaid not by the State but by the contributions of the workers, the employers, and the State The whole amount of money paid out during the last two years, from November, 1920, including administration, amounts to the vast sum of £109,000,000. Of that sum £79,000,000 on the income side has to be put down to industry, that is, to the workers and employers, and no less than £38,000,000 has to be put down to contributions of the workers themselves. That is a gigantic figure, and ought once for all to explode the fiction that this money paid in benefit is a dole which comes entirely from the funds of the State. In conclusion with regard to this Insurance, first of all, it behoves me, as trustee pro tem for the scheme, to make use of every penny and spread it out as far as possible; and I should like while on this to make a reference to the great services of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camber-well in devising these Acts and administering them over a long period. I do not think that either this House or the country quite realise how much these Acts owe to him.
    Secondly, let me say the scheme of Unemployment Insurance has been freely subjected to the criticism of employers and workers, and I dare say it-will be freely subjected to their criticism in future. We have also had the help both of employers and workers in developing it. They have enabled us to build up this scheme. Their criticism has generally been reasonable. The help both of employers and workers has been real, and it is because of their criticism and help that I do say emphatically that
    966
    the Unemployment Insurance scheme has not been an unsuccessful one, that there is no country in the world that has anything comparable with it, and that it has proved, whatever criticism may be urged from the other side, a sheet anchor to us in a time of great difficulty.
    Lastly, as to the stimulation and development of trade. As a result of the Unemployment Insurance Act we have got for the first time in this country, indeed in the world, something approaching accurate statistics ELS to the course of unemployment and its relation to various trades, and we find as a consequence, what you would expect, that unemployment is highest where the industry depends largely upon foreign trade. For instance, in engineering it is 22 per cent., while the average rate is 12, and in shipbuilding it is 36 per cent. Before the War 50,000 tons of agricultural machinery were exported annually from this country. That export has dropped to 5,000 tons. Europe alone took 36,000 tons from January to August, 1913, but only 2,000 tons this year. Those figures go to emphasise the point put by the hon. Member as to the importance of foreign trade in this matter.
    What has been done? Under the Export Credits Scheme help has been given to individual traders by guaranteeing risks. Risks up to a limit of £26,000,000 can be guaranteed. £22,000,000 have been sanctioned, and £4,000,000 remain over, but as the risks fall in others can be accepted. Then the Trade Facilities Act, in my view and the view of most of those who watched this problem closely, has been one of the most successful of our developments. The right hon. Gentleman referred to British credit. I agree that it is an improving asset. Take the exchange with America. Not so long ago the pound sterling was worth about 13s. Now, according to the latest quotation, it has gone up to 18s. 7d. The late Government initiated a programme under the Trade Facilities Act whereby the issues of capital by which labour was likely to be engaged were to be assisted by a guarantee either of principal or principal and interest by the State, but in order to see that bad schemes were not accepted a Committee was set up over which a great financier, Sir Robert Kindersley, has presided, and I must express on behalf of the Govern-

    967
    ment our thanks to him for the untiring energy and ability with which he has conducted the affairs of that Committee.
    No fewer than 800 schemes have been examined, and capital issues of £22,500,000 have been guaranteed for schemes like railway development, dock improvement and electrical supply schemes. The London Tube Railways are perhaps the best known example. There was an issue of £6,500,000 for London Tubes. New Tubes were badly wanted. The first sod was cut at Goldei's Green on 12th June last. 2,500 men are employed directly on tunnelling and so forth and 5,500, probably, indirectly on machinery, plant, carriages and so forth, making a total of 8,000 in all. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who is so very critical of the Government that development along these lines does offer real hope for the future.
    Mr. CLYNES: How many of the 800 schemes examined were rejected or not supported?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I cannot say offhand. I could get the information for the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow, but I have no doubt that, on an occasion of this kind, a good many of the schemes put up would be schemes which, on examination, would not prove very satisfactory. As I think I have already indicated, out of the £25.000,000 £22,500,000 has been utilised for the purpose of guaranteeing capital. To sum up. During the last two years, work on various programmes, including the Trade Facilities Act programme, has been started or stimulated to the extent of something like £75,000,000, and, including the £30,000,000 insurance contribution, you get a figure of well over £100,000.000, and in addition to that—I do not want to make a feature of this, but it must be remembered—very large sums have been expended by the guardians over and above the amount I have suggested here. On this point, I would like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to an article in the "Manchester Guardian" on reconstruction, under the editorship of Mr. Keynes, whose name is familiar to most people interested in this subject. The article points out first of all that the power of Governments in this matter is limited because Governments are national and
    968
    trade is international, but bearing that in mind the Government relief Measures of last winter—these are very remarkable words—
    "constituted the biggest effort any Government has ever made to solve the problem of unemployment in a depression."

    RELIEF SCHEMES (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).
    I hope that the House will bear with me for a few minutes while I explain how we propose to develop that effort. The late Government had schemes in contemplation for the coming winter, and the Gracious Speech referred to their continuance and extension. The Cabinet Committee on unemployment was re-appointed directly the present Government took office and has been considering actively proposals of many kinds. I propose now to describe them in a little detail. It must be borne in mind that the Cabinet remains acutely conscious of the evils of the present crisis, and will keep the whole situation under the closest observation. The Cabinet Committee is continuing its work and will be in a position to bring up further proposals as they may be necessary.
    Following what I call our three main lines of effort, I will take first of all relief and general work. Let us take the road works first. As regards the special programme of the winter 1922–23, the amount available under the late Government's proposals at the beginning of the winter was £5,300,000. A large number of applications have been put in by local authorities and these schemes are being rapidly pressed on. The financial basis is usually a 50 per cent, contribution from the State. It is hoped that along those lines the great new arterial road from Manchester to Liverpool, about which I have been questioned, may, with the co-operation of the local authorities, be initiated at an early date.
    That road alone, which will be 27 miles in length, will, it is estimated, cost £3,000,000, and give work to 20,000 men for many months. The Government are promising £1,500,000 as their contribution to this big scheme, and that is in addition to the £5,000,000 odd mentioned above. It is hoped that the local authorities concerned will see their way, with this assistance, to proceed immediately with the scheme, which will not only help their

    969
    unemployed but should benefit the industry of the locality.
    In addition, for the current financial year so large a sum as £10,000,000 sterling from the Iload Fund is being devoted to ordinary highway maintenance and improvement, which should have the effect of absorbing much unskilled labour. The question of a further large programme of arterial road development is being seriously considered by all concerned, but. in any case, it could not be put in hand immediately.
    Secondly, there is the Unemployment Grants Committee. Under the proposals of the late Government, the Unemployment Grants Committee was empowered to assist local authorities' loan schemes up to a total during the two winters of £18,000,000, with a further £12,000,000 approved by the late Government last summer, or, as I have already mentioned a total in all of £30,000,000, and schemes up to about £23,000,000 have been in fact sanctioned to date. A large number of further applications have been received and plans for the utilisation of the remaining £7,000,000 are being pressed on immediately. With regard to works assisted by means of a direct grant up to 60 per cent, of wages bill, which I have already mentioned, this scheme had secured the initiation of work up to £10,250,000, but it was drawing near a close. We propose that the Committee should be authorised to revert to the system of making grants on the basis of 00 per cent, of the wages bill, and we are allocating for this purpose, from central funds, a further £600,000. Grants on the 60 per cent, basis are of value, especially to the smaller local authorities, or for schemes where a loan is not practicable and the work is to be done out of revenue. The grant will enable about an additional £2,000,000 worth of undertakings to be put in hand in various parts of the country, and work of a specially desirable character, as it can be started immediately and practically without preliminary delay. There is, unfortunately, considerable unemployment in rural districts. Agricultural labourers are not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. Rural authority schemes for improving third-class roads where there is serious unemployment are eligible for this 60 per cent, grant.
    Next, as to agricultural areas and land drainage and similar work. As regards
    970
    agricultural areas, the sum of £300,000, with a corresponding grant for Scotland, was provisionally allotted by the late Government for land drainage and improvement, including water supply schemes, during this winter. The schemes already before the Ministry of Agriculture would exhaust the whole of the money so set aside for this winter. We propose, therefore, that a further sum of £150,000, with a corresponding Scottish grant, or £170,000 in all, should be provided, and in Scotland, where drainage schemes are not always available, rural road improvement schemes may in some cases be substituted. It is estimated that this additional grant will enable 20 weeks' work to be provided for a further 6,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned afforestation. Afforestation schemes have proved of utility in the past, largely on account of the fact that so large a proportion of the assistance available is distributed in wages, and also because the schemes, being small in size, are very numerous and spread all over the country. We, therefore, propose a further grant of £100,000 for this purpose. This further grant will mean employment for a further 2,000 men for 20 to 25 weeks.
    Another head is acceleration of contracts. The Office of Works has considerable arrears of maintenance and repair work, and we propose to allot £375,000 to enable them to overtake these arrears. On an estimate this will probably occupy on an average about 3,500 men for a period of 20 weeks. The Post Office should also be able to put in hand very rapidly schemes, e.g., for the laying of Post Office cables. This would mean some £650,000 worth of work, and with other similar schemes the Post Office proposals total about £1,000,000. This will be a valuable feature of the general programme, as it will provide work, not only for large numbers of men on digging operations, but also for skilled craftsmen in factories, on electrical plant, cables, etc. Of course this Post Office work is, as was the work of the Office of Works itself, accelerated work due to the action taken by the Government.
    The next head is stimulation of trade. I have already described the operations under the Trade Facilities Act. I have indicated that they are one of the most hopeful of the avenues open to us. The Act of 1921 expired on 9th November, and

    971
    it is in any case necessary to renew it. The late Government had proposed a* the same time to increase the maximum of capital in respect of which guarantees might be given, from £25,000,000 to £50,000,000. We cordially agree with this policy, and we propose to renew the Act for a period of 12 months, and to increase the maximum amount of capital which may be guaranteed to £50,000,000. At the same time we propose to make some provision to enable fees to be charged on a percentage or other suitable basis to meet the heavy costs of legal and other expenses. That is done with a view to protecting the Exchequer. I am glad also to be able to inform the House that Sir Robert Kindersley will continue to give his most expert help as Chairman of the Committee.
    Next, as to the Export Credits scheme The working of this scheme is proceeding satisfactorily, and we propose to extend the existing limit of £26,000,000. should it prove necessary to do so. As to Unemployment Insurance, a new special period, the fourth under the existing Acts, started at the beginning of this month and runs to the beginning of July next. Benefit may be drawn for at least 12 weeks. As a matter of fact the number of cases in which the total benefit will be as little as 12 weeks will be very small. Something like four-fifths of those now claiming benefit will, so far as I can ascertain, be eligible, for the full 22 weeks of benefit allowed in the period, and the great bulk of the remainder will be eligible for between 16 and 22 weeks. The existing provision enables something like £35,000.000 to be paid out by way of benefit during the fourth special period, and it covers the months immediately before us. As the right hon. Gentleman referred to the matter of unemployment insurance by industries, I may perhaps be allowed to say this: The subject is an important one and it is one of considerable complexity, and it will not be practicable for me to deal with it at length to-day. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated yesterday that preliminary steps regarding the examination of the subject are being taken, and in order that the Government may obtain the considered view of the employers on the one hand and of the trade unions on the other I
    972
    have just sent to the Employers' Confederation and to the Trade Union Congress General Council a memorandum on the matter with a request for their views thereon.
    The right hon. Gentleman also raised a question of the guardians. The burden on boards of guardians during the past year has undoubtedly been great, and particularly is this so in the more necessitious areas. The guardians throughout the country have shouldered their very heavy responsibility with courage and sympathy, and the State owes them a debt of gratitude for patriotic work done under very difficult circumstances. In some cases it has been necessary for the boards of guardians to raise temporary loans to meet their current expenditure on relief, and in those cases where they have been themselves unable to borrow the money required, the Government have made advances by way of loan out of voted moneys. This policy, which was inaugurated by the late Government, enabled the guardians to weather the trouble during last winter. We are satisfied that a continuance of these arrangements should prevent any possibility of a breakdown of the guardians' finances. We propose, therefore, that the same policy should be continued, and we propose to ask Parliament to make the necessary provision for this purpose. The Minister of Health will give all assistance possible under these arrangements to boards of guardians, particularly in necessitous areas, which require to raise loans for the purpose of relieving distress.
    Mr. LANSBURY: They will be loans?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I was careful to say loans.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: For how long a period?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The question of the period has been a matter of discussion. I cannot go into that at the moment. We shall have other opportunities of raising the question I would like to say a few words about something which is present to the minds of all of us, and that is the question of general trade, apart from the efforts made by the Government itself. We have often urged in this House and out of it that the only effective remedy for unemployment is a

    973
    revival in ordinary trade conditions. We have received exhortations, many and often, including this afternoon, from the benches opposite that work is better than doles. I agree. It is in this spirit that we have made further determined efforts to call in the ordinary processes of industry to help carry the load of unemployment.
    Take the railways. The railways of the country have, since the War, passed through a critical and difficult time. To meet these difficulties the Railways Act, 1921, proposed an entire reorganisation of the British railway systems. The Act-is working smoothly, and the amalgamations proposed under it are practically effected. But the Government, while recognising the natural difficulties of the railways, felt that railway development, if now pressed on, would constitute a real help in this time of grave unemployment. The Prime Minister accordingly asked some of the directors and managers of the leading railway companies to meet him, and requested them as far as possible to press on expenditure on development work. They responded in a most helpful way, and undertook that, without waiting for complete legal union, the great groups and companies for which they were responsible would make every effort to prepare and expedite their programmes. The various companies inform us that they have in hand, or can speedily undertake, programmes of work, which in outline are as follows:

    £

    North Western and Midland Railways

    2,000,000

    Great Eastern

    1,000,000

    Great Western

    1,000,000

    London and South-Western

    1,000,000

    These are the amounts already notified, but schemes of between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 more are already in contemplation, and the companies have further assured us that, as the grouping proceeds, they will be able to launch further development work. Still more important perhaps than all these works are the proposals of the new Southern group for electrification. The Chairman-elect has promised, not only to press on with the electrification of the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway suburban area, but also to extend the electrification of the London, Brighton and South Coast and the London and South-Western Railways. This expenditure will be effective in promoting,
    974
    not only direct, but also indirect employment on a very large scale. These operations will be undertaken by the railways without any Government assistance at all, except in the case of the South-Eastern electrification.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There will be a guarantee there?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Yes: there is a guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act. As to the electricity supply schemes, that is another area where it was conceived that an effort might be made. We have here a large field in which operations are in contemplation which will provide a great deal of employment both for unskilled workers and also for skilled workers in factories. The Ministry of Transport and t)he Electricity Commissioners report proposals for new power stations or large extensions of existing power stations at Barking, Deptford, Stourbridge, Ferry Bridge, Agecroft, Preston and Nottingham. All these are important generating stations on which work is either in hand or imminent. The Grampians Electric Power Company have an Act empowering them to construct big water power works on the River Tay. They also are seeking a guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act. The schemes I have just mentioned would, between them, involve operations on a very large scale, totalling something like £10,000,000, while, in addition to that, there would be in every case the work on the construction and laying of new transmission lines or cables providing a good deal of additional employment. Moreover, as the House knows, this is a time of re-organisation throughout the country in the matter of electricity supply. Numerous cases of developments arising from this re-organisation have been submitted to the Electricity Commissioners. Some of them have already been approved and can be accelerated if the authorities concerned agree, and they are being approached with this end in view.
    I hope I have not wearied hon. Members with these details, but it seemed to me of importance to place these matters in some detail before the House. In conclusion, may I say that we have been battling through what I have described as a storm period. There are signs that the storm is beginning to abate; slowly it may be, but, in my view, steadily for all that. We read of contracts for the elec-

    975
    trification of railways in South Africa secured by one British firm and for the supply of railway wagons in India secured by another. Even from the Clyde come reports of contracts for the steel trade, and we hear of furnaces in the North restarting which have been idle for the last two years. Railway and electrical concerns, as I have already indicated, are showing the way. Is it too much to suggest that a great national effort should now be made by all who have their hands on the levers of industry to set all proper development and reconditioning work in hand as rapidly as possible. The problem is clearly an industrial one, and the leaders of industry are patriotic Englishmen. I make an appeal to them for help. I appeal to them now that prices are becoming stabilised to take a hand in big schemes of necessary work and broaden out the basis of employment throughout the country; and I believe I shall not appeal in vain.
    Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the total of the direct contribution which the State proposes to make towards relief and towards afforestation schemes and in other directions? He has given us details, and, as far as I can follow them, the total amount is just under £4,000,000. Is that accurate?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the figure, without working it out. In the course of the Debate it will be given.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Ministry of Labour scheme for juveniles has been accepted or has it been turned down?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I had so much ground to cover, and I was so afraid of wearying the House, that I did not refer to that matter, but I will see that a statement in reply to the Noble Lady is made in the course of the Debate.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to circulate with the Votes to-morrow morning a statement of the expenditure which he has just announced to the House under the various headings of the memorandum he has read, together with an estimate of the number of people to be employed and the length of time they will be employee?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have given a very careful statement. I am afraid it was a little laborious, perhaps a little wearisome. It will all appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning. I should have thought that would be enough to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: It is really for the convenience of hon. Members. If we have to wade through this very interesting statement, that will take a considerable time, whereas a table abstracting the figures which are in the statement would be most convenient.
    Mr. PATRICK HASTINGS: In my view, it would be most undesirable if any Member speaking from this side of the House, particularly one who is addressing the House for the first time, should make the slightest suggestion that hon. Members on the other side are not equally sincere in their views with ourselves I certainly do not propose to suggest that, and I do not think it is necessary even to ask hon. Members on this side to concur with me. In all the observations I have heard here, I frankly confess I have heard nothing but the most obvious attempts to be of assistance to those people whom we are seeking to represent in putting forward this Amendment. I may say, without fear of contradiction, that there are very few among the Members on these benches, and in that number I include myself, who at some time or another have not themselves experienced the dire effects of extreme poverty, and in many cases utter starvation, and I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that any man who has once experienced that does not forget it, and is not likely to take any steps which would tend to prevent the ends we are setting ourselves out to attain in this matter. At the same time, I feel it to be part of my duty to emphasise before this House the fact that there is undoubtedly at this moment throughout the length and breadth of this country a growing feeling of intense bitterness, both at the long period during which this tragedy of unemployment hat continued and the small amount done by successive Governments towards amelioration. Further, in my view, any hon. Member would only be wasting the time of the House if he did not rise with the sole object of

    977
    putting forward some substantive suggestion towards the ends which we have in view. I would not have risen had I not that intention, which I am now endeavouring to fulfil.
    I do not propose to deal with the observations which have fallen from the Minister of Labour. Many of my Friends who sit beside me will deal with them, and I do not propose even to run the risk of repetition. I propose to deal with the subject in an entirely different aspect. In my view it is the first duty of this or any Government to deal with this problem, not merely by amelioration but by what to me is an infinitely greater task and one of infinitely greater importance, and that is, first of all to probe to the bottom the causes of unemployment, and, secondly, to probe to the bottom the remedies which may be, and should be, taken to stop it in future. The fundamental fallacy in the deliberations which have taken place under this and preceding Governments lies in the fact that no Member on the Government side has ever attempted to appreciate that this problem is not political at all but economic. It is economic, and nothing but economic. I appeal to Members of the House who have been—as I have not been—in the House for many years past to ask themselves whether in the Debates which have gone on for years upon economic subjects, that which occurs to one as the most wearisome is the annual topic, that of the relative values or merits of Protection and Free Trade—whether they have ever known upon that or other subjects, which were clearly economic, the argument of an hon. Member on one side of the House having had the slightest effect upon an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House? The answer would clearly be "Never." I also appeal to them to consider whether, when that matter came before the country and millions of people were voting on the future of the country, one 10,000th of the electors ever had the foggiest idea of what this question really depended upon. The answer again would be "Never."
    6.0 P.M.
    This is, in my considered opinion, precisely the same question to-day. It is an economic question, and with all the strength at my command I would urge upon the Government the immediate necessity for investigating this problem as an
    978
    economic problem, as a question for a public inquiry of a nature which the Government alone would be in a position to set up. May I take an example, because these things can only be made clear, if at all, by examples? It will be known to every Member that during the recent election the party to which I am, I may say at once, proud to belong, was, in my view, the only party which sought to put forward a constructive programme before the nation. [Laughter.] In the buildings in which I usually carry on my life, the jury is not so ready to laugh as are the Members of this House. I repeat, that we were the only party which sought to put forward a constructive programme. I am not for a moment suggesting that the proposals which we put forward met with the universal approval which they merited. All I am saying is that we put them forward, and if hon. Members opposite regard that statement with amusement, I am bound to point out that we, or some of us, did try to find out what their constructive programme was. I notice that the Prime Minister at the moment is not in the House, but I am sure that, if he were, he would remember that questions were asked of him, and to the best of my recollection his answer was that he was unable at the moment to express an opinion as to the exact position in which he found himself, which was, after all, not very illuminating to persons who were seeking to find out the policy of the Government.
    For the purpose of my argument I choose, and deliberately choose, for my example, the matter which we put forward and which was most unpopular to the hon. Members on the other side. I heard some hon. Member opposite say "Capital Levy," and I may say that he has guessed right. That is the matter which I am going to suggest, and it seems to me to by a vitally important argument in this matte)'. During the last three or four years I have travelled in most of the Continental capitals, and I have found in every one, without one single exception, amongst all the business minds of those capitals, precisely as I find to-day in London, a universality of opinion that no country in the world can continue to do anything but suffer the miseries of unemployment as long as it is burdened by the present existing system of taxation and debt, and everybody agrees, without one single

    979
    exception, that something has got to be done in order to alter that, otherwise this unemployment will, and must inevitably, continue, as far as we can see, and as I understand the Lord Chancellor suggested a few days ago, at least for some 10 years or more. What we sought to do was to put forward a remedy for that existing evil, and I am not going to suggest for a moment—it is no part of the discussion which I am raising—that we are right, neither am I going to suggest that we are wrong, but all I do say is this, that it must be apparent to every honest-minded person that something must be done to deal with that question, alike of taxation and of debt, and that that is not a political question at all.
    It cannot be suggested, merely because hon. Members on this sdde put it forward, that they are properly to be characterised either as knaves or as fools, which is what we got in the last election, and no doubt hon. Members opposite may continue to hold the same view, but I would remind them that there was a time when the Prime Minister, who, I repeat, is not at the moment in the House, had * slightly different opinion himself and, without perhaps having fully considered the matter, expressed a very similar view, while the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), on a somewhat similar occasion, expressed a very similar view, until, of course, he had the advantage of being reproved by the more powerful members of the party to which he belonged, and I am sure hon. Members opposite would not desire that I should put either of those two right hon. Gentlemen into the category which I have described as being so generously bestowed upon us. In the constituency which I now represent, there was adjoining me an hon. Member sitting behind me now, the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Warne), who is a miner, while I, if I may let the House into a secret, am a lawyer. There was a gentleman with a stertorous voice who came to oppose us both, and who was heard to say in my constituency that no Labour man could possibly support me as a Labour candidate, because I was a lawyer and knew too much. He immediately went into the mining division and stated that nobody could support my hon. Friend because he was a miner and did
    980
    not know anything. In other words, I was the knave and he was the fool. I think I may say in Parliamentary language on this occasion that the fools and the knaves have it, as we both find ourselves in the happy position of being in this House.
    Nobody suggests upon this side of the House that this obvious remedy for unemployment is put forward merely to injure anybody. The only purpose of it, and the only ground of belief upon which it is put forward, is this, that if you reduce the capital debt and thereby the interest, you benefit unemployment, you benefit trade, you benefit business, and you benefit the country as a whole. I am sure that if it were true the mere fact that it would injure certain persons who were sufficiently wealthy to have to pay the debt would be no answer to its advisability. I hope my hon. Friends, who, I am sure, are fair-minded, will-appreciate the force of the analogy I am putting forward. If we are right, that should be done; if we are wrong, that should be dropped. [Interruption.] When hon. Hembers remember that we were asked to be of assistance in this Debate, I would suggest that that sort of interruption is uncalled for. I would like to take this opportunity of mentioning, if I may, very respectfully, in support of the party to which I belong, that it is not difficult, as we know sometimes, to induce hon. Members of my party to make observations which may be regretted, but on the other hand that which is placarded against us all over the town ought not, I think, to outweigh the fact as to which I am sure every hon. Member in this House will agree that this party of mine have conducted this Debate hitherto with most extraordinary ability, and moderation, and skill, and I think hon. Members opposite would be kinder to Members who have not had the experience of speaking that they have had if they were to allow them a free hand.
    All that I am venturing to point out is this. Either we are right or we are wrong, precisely as in the old days of the Tariff Reform disputes one of those two parties was presumably right and the other wrong. What I am urging—and this is merely an example of the whole problem—and what I shall continue to urge, and what I respectfully trust the Prime Minister will see fit to deal with,

    981
    is this, that these problems should be put before a tribunal to deal with as a matter of economics and not of politics. No one but the (Government has the power of doing it; no one but the Government has the power of getting some form of commission or tribunal which shall inquire into the fundamental principles underlying the problem of unemployment. I am not suggesting that anybody would be so foolish as to think that that would mean that the Government would be bound by the findings of such an inquiry. We should not ask for that. Indeed, some hon. Members have in the past had experience of Commissions based upon that sort of promise, and we certainly do not desire to have a repetition of what at the best was a misunderstanding and at the worst caused a good deal of bitterness. It would be, to my mind, essentially desirable in the interests of these great problems which we are now trying to assist that matters which are fundamentally composed of economic questions should be dealt with economically, and that the Government themselves should say, "These problems are so complicated that we politically are not in a position to express a considered view upon them." That. I understand, is what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour in fact has said to-day.
    In these circumstances, and before they are prepared merely to treat with contempt the suggestions from this side, I urge that they should themselves inquire into these economic questions, to see, after careful examination and, I am bound to add—it is a weakness perhaps of those in my profession—cross-examination, how-far these economic problems really can be put in such a way that every person, not only on these benches, but outside, can form an unbiassed, fair determination upon their merits and their demerits, It is, to my mind, perfectly useless for a Government to say this: "You on one side have put forward concrete proposals which in our opinion are ridiculous." We know that something like 4,000,000 people in this country have been influenced by them, rightly or wrongly. If it is wrong, it is most desirable that it should be ventilated; if it is right, it is essential that it should be ventilated, and I most strongly urge on the Government, before, concluding this Debate by saying they can find no solution, that they shall undertake
    982
    that this economic problem should be ventilated fairly, in the interests not only of the Government, but of the country as a whole. A very learned judge, one of the greatest judges I have ever known, once said to me: "In my view, when two litigants come before me, it is more desirable that they should go away satisfied that their case has been fairly, impartially, and fully heard, than that a right decision in point of law should be given in such a way as to cause dissatisfaction to either." [Laughter.] I rather gather that hon. Members opposite take a contrary view. It may be that they have not considered that matter quite seriously, but those of us who practise in the Courts have a great feeling that one of the strongest bulwarks of our sense of English justice is not only the decisions which are given, which I am bound to say are sometimes wrong, but the method in which cases are conducted and the sense of justice conveyed to both the litigants; and it would do more—and I say it with all seriousness—to cause content and peacefulness of mind in this immense body of unemployed who are now about the country if they were told that the Prime Minister had decided that these questions should be publicly ventilated, that all questions of fundamental and economic importance should be publicly ventilated, than all the schemes such as those which we have heard to-day put together. T do not hesitate to say that the schemes we have heard to-day are, in my opinion— and, I fancy, my hon. Friends here will consider them—inadequate, and in no way-deal with the problem.
    I fear that I have taken up the time of the House far too long. [HON. MEMBEBS: "No!"] I conclude by making this appeal to His Majesty's Government. They must remember, as hon. Members opposite will remember, I am sure, what happened in their constituencies in the last three or four weeks. This, I think, has been a very remarkable experience for all. I doubt whether, in the history of the world, there has ever been a Parliament, which, by reason of the set of circumstances in which we have all been living, has given rise to greater feelings of anxiety, fear and hope than the present Parliament has done. At this very hour, I venture to think, there are literally millions of eyes all turned in this direction, because their owners really think that at last some real effort is going to

    983
    be made to deal with problems which, to them, are matters of life and death. If— and only if—the Government are determined to see that every possible light is thrown upon these matters, which we, on behalf of millions, are demanding, they will do more to maintain real peace and confidence in the country—without which there can be none of the tranquillity they desire—than they will by all the measures they can suggest put together.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: Perhaps the House will allow me, as one who, having been Minister of Health, and for two years Chairman of the Cabinet Unemployment Committee, has taken a very deep and earnest interest in this very difficult problem, to offer a few observations in the Debate to-day. The hon. and learned Member, whom we all welcome as a brilliant acquisition to this HOUSP, and to whose speech we listened with so much interest, made a- suggestion which would lather deprive this House of its immemorial function of being the debating chamber for all questions, economic and otherwise. I can assure him that this House is not so devoid of economists and men of finance that we should refer these matters to some Committee outside. We are quite prepared to discuss this matter with him or with anyone else. I do not wish to enter too far into the question, but I would like to say to him that the proposal of a capital levy was made in this House by Members of the Liberal party and has been adopted by the hon. and learned Member's party at a rather recent date. I remember that the proposal was originally made by an hon. Member who sat for one of the Yorkshire seats—a member of the Liberal party. It was very much investigated, and dropped by all people who thought seriously on the subject, including, I think, most of those who flirted with it here or on the Continent of Europe. [HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear you!"] The hon. and learned Member makes all kinds of assertions which he, cannot prove. He assumes, for instance, that unemployment is due to our large National Debt, but he did not explain why there is no unemployment in France, which, proportionately, has a larger National Debt, or why it is so in Germany. Nor did he explain why there is acuter unemployment in Sweden and Norway which have, in fact, no war
    984
    debt at all. So that these problems are not quite so simple as gentlemen in another sphere seem to imagine.
    I think that men who are out of work to-day are more anxious at present to discuss some method of alleviating their condition this winter than the setting up of economic inquiries into the causes of unemployment. A great many inquiries have taken place on this subject. I remember the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) many years ago had a very important conference, and I think I was the chairman on this very question on unemployment. We discussed it for three days without arriving at any decided conclusion, but I am glad to say that to-day, at any rate, the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. dynes) struck a very different note, I think, in the Debate than that in some of the speeches we have had from those benches. He did not begin by saying that we ought to destroy our social system, and burn down the house to roast the pig, and so he relieved us of some of the necessity of dealing with views we cannot share. There is one important point upon which we are all agreed. The country is dependent upon its export trade. Those who say that the capitalist system is fundamentally wrong, and cannot solve the question of unemployment, have never demonstrated how you can carry on any export trade under a socialistic system. I have read, I think, all the books on the subject, including that of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), but even his ingenious mind up to now has not tackled that very important subject.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD indicated dissent.
    Sir A. MOND: The hon. Gentleman may have mentioned it, but no one has yet tackled this important point. Our export trade is largely d-pendent on our capital investments abroad, and one of the chief reasons of unemployment is not necessarily high taxation, but is due to the fact that we have not a surplus capital to invest abroad, and under a socialistic system I do not sec how we could have the capital to enable our export trade to be carried on. I, for one, am not prepared to add to our present miseries by a further experiment of so vague and violent a character. But there is another very important point to which I wish to direct the attention of my right

    985
    hon. Friend, and about which I hope to hear something more in the course of this Debate. We have lived very largely by exporting our manufactured goods to countries which were ready to give us in exchange food and raw material, and that enabled this country, the population of which was 11,000,000 in 1815, to increase to 38,000,000 in 1922. There is no law of the Medes and Persians that any country is bound to be able to support a given population at any given time. There is no particular reason why the population should be 36, 38 or 40 millions, and, therefore, the first thing you have to consider is whether or not some fundamental factor has occurred in the economic system of the world which makes it more difficult, and may render it impossible, for us to go on supporting a population of 38,000,000 in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let them die!"] Certainly no one wants to let them die. What a ridiculous observation! "What we want to consider is where labour can be most usefully applied.
    Therefore the question arises: To what extent do you want to transfer your population to countries where they can grow food for themselves and provide further employment for others? What I want to draw attention to is this. The late Government passed the Empire Settlement Act, under which, in conjunction with our Dominions, it was desired to get, not an irregular and a spasmodic emigration of people, who, when they arrived in any Dominion, had no jobs and no chance of making a living, but a rational, progressive form of emigration to places where land and work would be found, and where people could live a happy and useful life. I would like to hear from someone on the Government Bench during the Debate that these schemes, in which my right hon. Friend the. First Lord of the Admiralty took so much interest, are being quite as energetically, and even more energetically, put forward, if that be possible, than they were at that time. I am quite sure that that is an aspect of the case which ought to appeal to all thinking people.
    The Minister of Labour gave a very exhaustive and very fair account, if I may say so, of the efforts of the late Government, of which he was a distinguished and valued colleague, in the endeavour to deal with this problem to some extent. We never pretended that
    986
    the steps we took in the way of providing work were more than an alleviation, but we did seriously and carefully examine a very large number of schemes. I can assure hon. Members, that when you come down from generalities, and sit down to individual schemes, the difficulties that arise are very much greater than would be imagined. I do not say we did all that some of us would have liked to have seen done. I do not say more ought not to have been done, but there is one point to which I would like to direct the attention of the right hon. Member for Platting, who made some remarks as to the relative, economy of paying people for doing nothing and giving them work. The figures show that an enormous amount of capital is required in order to employ a relatively small number of people. I commend that to those who desire to destroy capital. When you add all these things together, the financial burden becomes heavier than one would otherwise imagine. [An HON. MEMBEK: "Under your system!"] Under any system. I do not hesitate to say that I am a little disappointed with my right hon. Friend's speech, and I hope the Prime Minister, when he replies to-morrow, will throw some further light on a number of the schemes which were under the consideration of the late Government, and the suggestions that were made to deal with some of these matters on a much broader scale than they have been dealt with in the past. I think we have now re-established our credit after a great deal of trouble, an operation which in itself involves a certain amount of unemployment as compared with the inflation policy of other countries. By inflation you can provide artificial employment and perhaps a return to an apparently prosperous state of things.
    I think our national credit should be used more boldly than in the past, We might use it in face of the immediate situation to the extent of £100,000,000 for Empire development. We have enormous countries in every part of the globe, some of them tropical, and there are our Dominions, some of which lack development in the way of railways, rolling stock, ports, harbours, and other works which would enable them to export more to us, and buy more of our manufactures. We have limited our Crown Colonies in a financial sense in borrowing to an amount

    987
    in proportion to the existing debt. Works such as I have instanced are going to be a revenue-producing work in the future. Is it impossible to launch loans for constructional works? No doubt schemes could be brought forward to a wider extent than in the past, particularly in our Colonies, which would immediately give orders that are badly wanted over here, and so help the trade of the Empire. One of our chief tragedies at the present time with our great industrial firms is that their money is being held by the bank and they have no orders. Some directors of firms are wishful to use what surplus they may have in order to keep their shops going and in order to give their men employment. That is one of the ideas which I do hope will receive very careful attention, because it is a matter of considerable importance.
    Another point that I should like to say a word about is that of housing. I built more houses than any other Minister before me, and when I left office I had not finished my ideas or my programme on the subject. By the fall in prices we have got housing on a much more economic basis than when I took office, and the margin to-day between the cost of construction and the value has become relatively narrow. My general idea was that the Government should act together with the local authorities, and with the object of giving the latter the fullest possible incentive to economy, I proposed to amend the existing housing legislation with its limitation of the local authority to a penny rate; and also to erect in two years a further 80,000 houses, to be built by the local authorities under specified conditions. By that method I think you could get back to a sounder basis and restore local authorities to a much greater degree of freedom, though I think they should have more freedom in the type of houses and greater elasticity than they would have had were their schemes controlled from Whitehall. It seems to me that it would be possible by taking the right method to add to our housing 100,000 houses without anything additional being added to our taxation, and unemployment in the building trade would have been sensibly diminished. But I would add a word of warning on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour quoted the unemployment figures in the building trade
    988
    which we have often discussed when I was on the other side of the House. I will say this: that one of the chief difficulties we have always had in house building schemes has been the limited supply of skilled labour. It is no use beginning houses if you cannot finish them. These figures include a very large amount of unskilled labour, some of it scarcely connected with the building trade though classified as such. I do hope the Government will not give up the matter, but will go into that question of the unemployment in the building trade, which has undoubtedly increased.
    A further point, and a much more fundamental one, that I would like to put forward is this: whether it would not be possible to use the unemployment benefit to enable the men to obtain work. There is no one in this House who does not agree that the workman would sooner be at a job than receiving out-of-work benefit. Hon. Members above the Gangway sometimes imagine that there is a very different feeling in respect to the workmen on the part of some who happen to employ them, or who look at them from a distance. The men who would rather be receiving unemployment benefit than working must be very few and far between. I have worked with the workmen all my life and I know them, and I know very well that the ordinary decent workman likes little to take out-of-work benefit, just as he detests Poor Law relief, and would much sooner do almost anything than accept either. Any allegation to the contrary is absolutely untrue. Therefore, the question arises whether you could not work out a scheme to give the workman the unemployed donation to enable him to get a job. He is as much entitled to the money by law as to the National Health benefit or Life Insurance benefit, and therefore it cannot be taken compulsorily from him. Why, therefore, should you not allow him to take the money and go to the employer, with proper safeguards, of course, and say, "If I give you this money, will you give me a full-time job at trade union rates?" [Laughter.] I would ask right hon. Members most seriously to consider the matter, because it would only be by their help that such a scheme could be contemplated. Let me explain it. You have now a very serious foreign competition. I was only yesterday talking to the chair-

    989
    man of one of our largest firms of electrical manufacturers. He told me he was competing for contracts for electrical machinery. He showed me the tenders. A Swiss engineering firm was quoting 50 per cent, below the price he could quote. Under the scheme I suggest, the men to be taken would be additional to those employed now, and the employer would not have to be in a position to discharge the man in order for him to go back as unemployed, and obviously he would have to engage him for a few months at least.
    There are many difficulties in the scheme, but it might be considered and given a trial. My proposal was that the workmen receiving Unemployment Act benefits should voluntarily surrender their benefits in return for definite employment with trade wages for a fixed period, the benefits surrendered being paid to employers to enable them to produce commodities at a lower price, and so bridge the already narrow gulf which separates buyers' prices from sellers' prices. The strongest opposition to schemes of this kind might be put forward on the ground that this was a form of subsidisation and, therefore, economically a bad thing to do. I will grant that to anybody. It may be an economically bad thing to do, but I maintain we are living in an economic period so extraordinary, unparalleled, and unexampled that you are entitled to take some economic steps in order to achieve results. Subsidisation is economically unsound, undoubtedly, and I do not deny it. But here we are now in the third winter with a million men out of work, and nobody on any of the benches in this House can guarantee that this number will not be still large 12 months from now if we do nothing more than we have done in the past. Nobody can guarantee that they have a remedy which will really fundamentally affect the matter. I am proposing one. One that, with all its economic unsoundness, will, I believe, help. I leave the suggestion with the Government. No one need do it. It is not compulsory. But there are some who would like to try it. In that way I think you would enable a large amount of trade to be obtained that is not obtained at the present. It is really not a question, believe me, to-day of a struggle between capital and labour, for
    990
    both employers and employed are in a very bad way in a world of difficulties unequalled in our history. Gorman reparation is the very smallest question in this matter. I have resumed the chairmanship of the company the other day with which I was formerly connected, and that has a very large trade with Italy. It cannot do any business with Italy because of the exchange. The state of the exchange is not because of the Treaty of Versailles or German reparation. The exchange is bad because they have a heavy debt and an inflated currency. As a matter of fact, the Italian exchange would be much better if they had some reparation from Austria. Take France. When I was in my constituency recently I found the coal trade there was stopped with France because of the French exchange. [HON. MEMBERS: "German coal!"] I know the German coal trade perfectly well; it was the French exchange. Nobody can contend that the French exchange is high because of Gorman reparation. The exchange there would be much better if they had some German money, but the problem of the exchanges is a big one, and I do not propose to go into it now. I could quote a large number of other countries. Let me quote what has been said by an authority on the question of endeavouring to establish the point of view as to the damage, or otherwise, the Treaty of Versailles has done to the Entente. This is what he says:
    "A considerable section of the English mercantile and manufacturing classes demands the stabilisation of the German mark and, strange to say, is convinced that this could be secured if Germany were released from the reparation payments. In coming to this conclusion they overlook the fact that the question of the stabilisation of the German mark is by no means purely financial, but is to a far greater extent political. The Entente, as a means of securing victory in its struggle against Germany, gave the German people to understand that they would be granted more favourable conditions of peace if they adopted a purely democratic system of government. There can be little doubt that under this system of absolute democracy a stabilisation of the German mark is almost impossible, even if Germany had nothing whatever to pay for reparations."
    As a matter of fact, when I was in Germany I discussed this question myself with German manufacturers, and I found one opinion amongst them, and it was that, although the fixing of the repara-

    991
    tions had some effect, the real reason was that the German Government had altered its economic methods. The suggested settlement of the reparations question may do something, but there is a much wider problem to consider, and that is that Continental countries will have to reconsider much more carefully their financial position and the balancing of their Budgets. Of course, these are things which we cannot force upon them. Hon. Members must not imagine that they are going to seriously affect unemployment by the methods they suggest of dealing with reparations, because if you had the whole of your German trade before the War back again it would make very little difference in regard to the question of unemployment in this country.
    The real fundamental question is the oversea trade to which I have already referred. The Minister for Labour told us a few things about railways and railway electrification which I am sure the House was glad to hear. I hope those electrification schemes will come along, and that the Government will see that they are not held up by any kind of red tape. This railway business has been held up far too long, and I hope it will be speeded on. With regard to trade facilities it is all right to treat them from a purely banking and financial point of view, but the Government should make sure that what they do is really a scheme for providing employment. Unemployment now is costing the country £100,000,000 a year. If you take 1,000,000 people it costs at least that in rates, unemployment benefit and other ways, and that money is going out of the pockets of the people. That is a fact which is continually being overlooked. The Treasury should not regard this simply as the amount of money they have to find, because in any case the money has to be found out of the national purse.
    I would urge that the amounts to be advanced should be made a little larger, because £50,000,000 will very soon be absorbed, and I trust that as much steam as possible will be put behind all these questions. I am sure the Labour Minister and his colleagues are anxious to do as much as they can. We worked very hard together on these questions for several years, and hon. Members know the amount of obstacles which always confront any Minister who tries to deal
    992
    with this problem, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will receive from these benches hearty support in any step he may take in this direction. I am sure that none of us wish to make party capital in regard to this matter. We see all these men unemployed. We have met them in our constituencies, and there is nothing more pathetic than to see men who have been out of work for 2½ years who have never been out of work before. I am sure they all receive the sympathy of every Member of this House, no matter what party they belong to.
    Sir ROBERT HOUSTON: I have listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, and, although he was very severe in his denunciation of the Government for their laches and misdeeds, he was singularly silent upon unemployment caused through strikes directly and indirectly. Strikes' have largely been the cause of a great deal of unemployment, and particularly the coal strikes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rot."] If hon. Members opposite will listen to what I have to say they will probably hear something they have not heard before. The various coal strikes gave a great impetus to the substitution of oil for coal burning on board steamers, and some 2,760 steamers have been converted to burning oil instead of coal. Take the case of one of the largest steamers, the Mauretania, which is an object lesson in itself. Prior to being converted to oil consumption, she burned about 1,100 tons of coal per day. Her voyage across the Atlantic occupied about 5¼ days' steaming time, and a round voyage would be 10½ days. She made on an average 12 trips a year, with the result that the consumption of coal for 12 months for that steamer alone was over 130,000 tons per annum. Therefore that amount of coal is no longer being mined for that ship, nor is coal being mined for the various other ships which have been converted to oil burning.
    Take the case of the men. The number of men employed on the "Mauretania" whilst she was burning coal was 328, but after conversion to oil burning she only-required 88 men. This means a reduction of 240 men, and that number of men has been sent to permanent unemployment, and they will have to try and find an occupation of some other kind. If you spread that over the various steamers

    993
    which have been converted from coal to oil burning you will find it works out that some 2,428 steamers of over 2,000 tons gross register have been converted to oil burning, and therefore we may take it that the British mercantile fleet is burning from 22,000,000 tons to 23,000,000 tons of coal per annum less than what they were consuming before the conversion of these ships to oil burning. Surely hon. Members belonging to the Labour party will realise the importance of that change.
    During the coal strike I pointed out to several miners' leaders that in this way they were simply committing suicide, and I told them what would be the effect on the coal industry of the conversion of all these, ships from coal to oil burning, and the only hon. Member who had the frankness to realise this was one of the Members for Fife who is a miners' leader. Consequently there is an enormous reduction in the total amount of coal requiring to be mined, and that causes unemployment. During the War a great many of the miners most patriotically went to the Front, although a great many of them found refuge in the mines who ought never to have remained there. I will not go into the various coal strikes, because hon. Members know all the facts, but I wish to allude to the coal strike which commenced at midnight on the 31st March, 1921, the men eventually returning to work on 4th July.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: That was not a strike; it was a lock-out.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir R. HOUSTON: At any rate, it was a stoppage of work. That strike was brought about owing to a difference of opinion on the question of a national settlement of wages and also a national pool. I do not want to dwell upon these various strikes, but there is one thing which is a serious matter—I refer to the joiners' strike. This strike commenced in December, 1920, and it was not settled until August, 1921, with the result that an enormous amount of trade was sent out of the country. The strike was protracted partly on account of the fact that joiners in the house building trade were not affected, and as the, building industry at that period was in a brisk condition, many ship joiners who would otherwise have been on strike obtained employment in the house building trade. Many joiners went over to the Continent and
    994
    obtained employment there on ship work, but although ship joiners were not seriously affected by the duration of the strike a great many ships were sent over to the Continent for fitting out and repairs. I will just mention one or two cases. The "Cordillera" was to have been installed throughout by the Rogerson Insulation Company, of Liverpool. It was a very big job, a matter of some £25,000. The work had been commenced when the strike intervened and the vessel was sent to Wilton's, in Rotterdam, where the insulation work and all the other joiners' work in connection with the accommodation was carried out. A sister ship, built by Messrs. Vickers, of Barrow, was also intended to be insulated throughout by the Rogerson Company. She, too, was sent over to Wilton's, at Rotterdam. Seven Canadian-Pacific liners, which would have been overhauled and refitted on the Clyde and in the Mersey, were sent to Antwerp for that purpose. The new Anchor liner "Cameronia," built on the Clyde by Messrs. Beardmore, was sent to Cherbourg to be fitted out for passenger accommodation. The Cunard liner "Scythia" was also sent from Barrow, in March, 1921, and completed in France. Many other steamers were sent abroad to Continental ports, principally Rotterdam. Not only was that the case for the joiners' work, but many ships, which had to be reconditioned, repaired and pass the survey have gone to the Continent.
    There was a case quite recently; a great point was made of it in my own election. A steamer—and this is very interesting to hon. Gentlemen opposite—had to be reconditioned and to go through the survey. Tenders were obtained from Messrs. Grayson, of Liverpool, for the work. They quoted £10,800; a number of extras which amounted to £2,500; or a total of £13,300; and eight weeks in which to do the work. Wilton's Engineering Company, of Rotterdam—I may mention that they are Englishmen—did the whole of the work for £7,000, a very little more than half of what Graysons required. They did the work in four weeks instead of in eight. An effort was made by the owners to keep that work in Liverpool, and Messrs. Graysons were offered £2,000 more by the owners, which would have made their price £9,000 instead of Wilton's £13,000. Graysons refused,

    995
    however. They said they could not do it. They said they had quoted their original price without any profit at all, and that it was quite impossible to accept the ofier without suffering a very heavy loss. It may rather surprise hon. Gentlemen opposite why Wilton's in Rotterdam could do the work for such a price as they quoted. The reason is that there s no overtime in Rotterdam. The men work in three shifts of eight hours each in the 24 hours, at a flat rate, including Sundays. The cost of living in Rotterdam is 8s. a week dearer than the cost of living in Liverpool.
    We have also had the electricians' strike, but I do not propose to say much about that. Then there was the moulders' strike, which lasted from September, 1919, until January, 1920. In this strike, owing to the moulders and core-makers being out, it was impossible to produce castings. Therefore, the engineering trades were very seriously handicapped, and considerable unemployment was thus created. I am not going to refer to the railway strike, but I will speak of a little strike in the neighbourhood of Liverpool, which shows the folly of some trade union restrictions. It is in relation to the Walton Institute. This is a charitable institution, which is now being built. A dispute has been going on for the last 12 weeks between the plumbers and the engine-fitters. The engine-fitters think they have the right of fitting the hot water supply pipes. The plumbers thought they should have had that right; in the result they struck. The strike is still going on, and is throwing other men out of work. That is at a period of the year when this institute is badly wanted for the poor sick people; yet no work is being done.
    There is another thing, which hon. Members must remember. There is no country in the world as dependent as ours upon its export trade for its existence. Agriculture is a great industry, but under present conditions it cannot feed more than two-thirds of the people of this country. The only way we can buy food or raw material from abroad is by the export of our manufactured industries or of our coal. Without that supply of exports this country is bound to come to grief. To be able to compete in foreign markets we have to sell as cheaply as any other producer. I ask hon. Members
    996
    opposite how they are going to sell as cheaply as the Germans, or as cheaply as the Americans with their protected market? Germany, which was at one time our greatest rival and competitor, is again becoming our great rival and competitor. It does not matter where you look—to South America, South Africa, India or Australia—the Germans are trying to break in.
    We are up against a very delicate and serious proposition. That is, how can we, if we are to maintain the present rate of wages, sell goods abroad against Germany's prices with her present low rate of wages? Either the rate of wages will have to come down—which I shall be very sorry indeed to see—or the hours of work will have to be very greatly increased. It is either one thing or the other. I am quite sure hon. Gentlemen opposite will take these few words of mine to heart and endeavour to find some way of dealing with the great question of unemployment. It is the one thing, and the most serious thing that we have to face. Unemployment is killing this country and draining its life-blood. Though I shall be guilty of a truism, I say that the only cure for unemployment is employment, and the only way you can get employment is by trade. It behoves everyone—masters and men, manufacturers, employers and employés—to do their very best, and to work together in the most amicable and friendly way to their mutual advantage. The one question I would ask hon. Members opposite to study very carefully is, how are you going to compete with the German manufactured articles? We are up against them in South America and also in South Africa.
    Mr. WALSH: Would the hon. Member like to press the British worker down to the German position?
    Sir R. HOUSTON: No.
    Mr. WALSH: That is exactly what he is suggesting.
    Sir R. HOUSTON: I say you have to face this question, to look at it, and to devise means to meet it. Up to the present nothing has been suggested and nothing has been devised.
    Mr. WALSH: The hon. Member should push his argument home to its proper conclusion.
    Sir R. HOUSTON: I will put it in this way. Half a loaf is better than no bread. I do not want to see low wages. I never have wanted to see low wages. I have always been an advocate of high wages.
    Mr. LEACH: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is aware—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I was unfortunate in not hearing the whole of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond), but I was in the House long enough to hear him use one argument to which I should like at once to call attention. My right hon. Friend always speaks with great knowledge and great persuasiveness on subjects, of international trade, and the House is always delighted to hear him. On this occasion, however, it seems to me that he has committed himself to a proposition, in criticising this Amendment, which some hon. Gentlemen who are associated with him will be very sorry to support. The Labour party's Amendment to the Address, which is now before the House, points out that mistaken foreign policy has had a serious effect in increasing unemployment, and that the remedy is largely to be found by adopting a wiser policy to enable European customers to buy our goods and so to restore international trade. For my part, I believe that course of reasoning contained in the Amendment to be entirely justified. I was very much interested in the reason why the right hon. Member for West Swansea thinks, on this occasion, that there is a fallacy in the reasoning of the Amendment. His argument was that if we would have regard to the part of our foreign trade that really mattered, the prompt restoration of trade with Europe was not nearly so important as trade overseas with other parts of the world. He gave some figures to illustrate his proposition, and he criticised this Amendment, amongst other reasons, on the ground that it is putting an emphasis which is not deserved on the importance of restoring our European markets. According to him, a more hopeful direction in which to look under present circumstances is to devote ourselves to the development of our trade overseas with the Dominions and the countries outside Europe.
    998
    Whatever may be said in favour of that argument, it is exactly the opposite argument from that pressed in this House of Commons as recently as last April, with the approval and support of the right hon. Gentleman, as a defence of the Genoa Conference. I repeat the language, not because I in the least object to the argument used by the late Prime Minister, when he urged this course of reasoning on the House, but because it is the precise opposite of the argument used by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea this afternoon. Anybody looking at the report of the speech of the late Prime Minister, which is to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, column 1885, Vol. 152, will find two passages which, so far as I am concerned, are quite sufficient answer to the argument of my right hon. Friend. The first one is the statement, which was afterwards developed, a statement not made in the abstract but in reference to the industrial conditions of this country, as recently as last April,
    "that Europe the best customer in the world and of the world has been impoverished by the greatest destruction of capital that the world has ever witnessed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1922; col. 1886, Vol. 152.]
    He went on to say that that was the thing which now had promptly to be remedied. Then the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the real answer to the question so often put, and so seldom answered rightly, was to be discovered not by confining ourselves to the question of what sales we make directly to Europe, but by remembering that our sales to other parts of the world essentially depend upon what India, for instance, is able to sell to Europe. Perhaps I may be permitted to read a short passage, in which the ex-Prime Minister said:
    "We are often asked a question, 'If you lost your trade in Europe could you not make it up by trading with the Dominions, trading with the Colonies and with other parts of the world?' The world is one trade unit. Our customers depend on their sales in European countries to pay for goods that we sell them. Take India. The purchases of India in this country have gone down very considerably. I attach great importance to this consideration from the point of view of Genoa. India is not buying from this country what she bought before the War. No doubt the organised opposition to British trade there has something to do with it, but that is not the main reason. The main reason is that India has always paid us for the goods we sell her by

    999
    the proceeds of her sales to other European countries. She pays us what she gets from selling to Germany, to France, to Austria and to Russia."
    Yet less than an hour ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea told us we really ought not to concern ourselves with such peddling matters as trade with Europe!
    Sip A. MOND: The right hon. Gentleman is really misrepresenting what I said. What I did say, and what I still maintain, is that a largely increased trade is to be done with countries apart from Europe. I cannot develop the point how, but the general suggestion was you must not expect too much from re-establishing your trade with Europe or with Russia, but you may expect a good deal by increasing your trade with the Dominions and countries outside Europe.
    Sir J. SIMON: I certainly understood my right hon. Friend to say, in view of the Amendment now before the House, that he would be inclined to regard as comparatively unimportant trade with Europe as compared with trade with the Dominions and with countries outside Europe. I should like to read one more sentence from the speech of the ex-Prime Minister on the 3rd April, 1922, in which he said:
    "She (India) sold, in 1913, 60,000,000 lbs. of tea to Russia alone and there are other commodities as well. Therefore the trade of Europe is of the greatest importance to us, not merely directly, but indirectly, and unless you restore the trade of Europe as a whole our purchasers will not be in a position to pay for the commodities which they get from us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1922; col. 1893, Vol. 152.]
    The last thing I desire in a Debate of this kind is to make captious contrasts between the speeches of my two right hon. Friends, but I do wish to point out, in order that hon. Members may hear both sides of the argument, that one part was supplied by the right hon. Member for Swansea most plausibly in his speech to-night, and the other part is embodied in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 3rd April, 1922. I would like to make this observation, which I do not think will provoke protest in any quarter of the House. The real tragedy, not of unemployment, but of Debates on unemployment, is that this House conducts those Debates at a time when unemployment is rife. The real misfortune of the whole position is
    1000
    that the time when it would be best to consider and make provision for unemployment is the time when employment is good. I do not say this with any desire to throw blame on any particular section of the House. It would be well, however, for some hon. Members behind me to remember that when you are faced with the actual presence of exceptional unemployment, although your sympathy is more keenly aroused and your indignation is more vigorously expressed, that is the worst time at which it is possible to devise prudent and satisfactory business methods of relief. My right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Mac-namara) made a speech a day or two ago on the Address in which he referred to the action taken by the late Government during the past two years on the subject of provision for unemployment. One would, indeed, be a captious critic if he did not recognise that during the last two years the most strenuous efforts were made by the late Government in order to deal with this terrible difficulty. The real misfortune is, whether because the public mind was not prepared or whether because other pressing subjects claimed earlier attention, the sad thing is—and I am not saying this with any desire to criticise one set of people as against another, for the observation applies to the country as a whole—the sad thing is that we did not make thoroughly satisfactory provision some time before.
    Let me give one example. Even while the War was going on, both under the premiership of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and also under the premiership of the late Prime Minister, a great deal of research was conducted, and a great deal of inquiry was carried through under the name of Reconstruction. I do not share in the censure which is sometimes cast on the work of Reconstruction Minister and Committee. They did an immense amount of most valuable work. They were helped to do it, both by the last Government and by the Government which preceded it. I have here in my hand a Parliamentary Paper issued by the Ministry of Reconstruction, and containing the second, third, fourth and fifth interim reports of the Civil War Workers' Committee. I see when I look at it that that was as early as February, 1918, while the War was still going on, and it is to the credit of the late Government that they

    1001
    did these things. There was in February, 1918, a report presented to the late Government, and circulated for the information of the House, dealing with the probable necessity of making provision for the unemployment which was sure to come. If I may I will call attention to this report, which is signed by a very well known authority on this subject, Sir William Beveridge, by Mr. Mallon, by Miss Susan Lawrence, and by the hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire (Mr. R. Young). I think that the paragraph which I propose to read will make good my point that it is a misfortune for which we all of us have to bear our share of blame that real remedies were not considered and devised a little sooner. The paragraph is as follows:
    "We are of opinion, accordingly, that the Minister of Labour should be asked to frame definite and detailed proposals for general insurance and to give affect thereto as soon as possible. The necessary steps to this end should clearly be taken with the least possible delay. At this stage it is impossible to foresee how soon the problems of demobilisation may became concrete and urgent realities. Unless a scheme of general insurance is devised, and launched, at the earliest possible date, it may be impossible to avoid the disastrous chaos of unorganised and improvised methods of relieving distress."
    I want the House to observe that that report was made in February, 1918. It occurred to me to look at the index of the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to see how far the subject of unemployment was considered and discussed in this House. I am not seeking to throw blame on anyone, but I must point out that in the year 1918, after this pressing recommendation had been urged on the House of Commons and the Government, an examination shows there was not a single reference from beginning to end in that year to this subject. Of course at that time we had a Reconstruction Committee at work, and although many people were devoting their attention to the question, it seems that as employment was good, other matters of pressing and urgent force and of overwhelming national importance claimed the attention of the House. Now it is really too late to devise businesslike methods of dealing with the problem. Let me carry my story a little further. I have noticed from the OFFICIAL REPORT that not once, but on
    1002
    many occasions, questions were asked in the Session of 1919 when it was proposed to produce a Measure for the extension of unemployment insurance, and the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister at the end of the Session intimated that although a Bill would be introduced at once, it was not proposed to go on with it. As a matter of fact, the Measure did not receive the Royal Assent and become law until August, 1920. Will the House be good enough to notice the date, August, 1920, was exactly the time when, to use the language of the Minister of Labour, the storm burst. I will ask the House to observe that although insurance against unemployment is a very valuable expedient, you cannot effectively work a system of insurance if you do not set it up until the risk against which you are insuring is actually at your doors. No one can insure his house after it has caught fire. The sad thing, the pathetic thing, is that the tremendous energy which has been put into dealing with the difficulties of unemployment after it became a tremendous anxiety to the country, was not, as a matter of fact, ante-dated so that recommendations such as that, which I have read, of February, 1918, might really have prepared the way. I noticed that, when my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Labour made his speech the other day, he spoke of this impending crisis, and said that we had caught the full blast of unemployment. He went on to say:—
    "We felt it with rapidly increasing severity from the fall of 1920 to the middle of last year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November; col. 237, Vol. 159.]
    Let the House observe the coincidence of dates. It was, unfortunately, not until August, 1920, that further statutory provision was made of a permanent kind to meet the situation. I do not forget that most extensive provision for the purpose of assisting ex-service men and others to get back to their work was made. But that, after all, was not a permanent arrangement, and I do think that when the historian of this tremendously important social subject comes to consider what has been the history of our provision during the last four years, he will say that the efforts that have been put forward by the late Government during the latter part of that time were efforts which will stand comparison, probably,

    1003
    with the efforts of any administration in the world.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Where is the comparison?
    Sir J. SIMON: I say that the historian of the future will say that the efforts put forward will stand comparison with those of any other country; but I think he will also say, not as a criticism of any particular party, that this is a very tragic instance of how impossible it is to get public attention and public action to deal with a tremendous danger until the danger is actually knocking at our doors. I will go further and say that, as far as I know, there has been no statutory provision for unemployment made in advance in times of good trade, with the single exception of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1911, which was part and parcel of the great insurance scheme of that year.
    Unemployment assurance having been at length established at the time when, as the late Minister of Labour said, the blast was already upon us, it is not really a satisfactory answer to say, "Well, people shall get their benefit first and shall pay their contribution afterwards." That, at any rate, does not appear to be a very satisfactory method, though it was far better than nothing at all. Let me take a second example of the very serious contrast between the time when it would have been well to do these things and the time when they were done. The House, I think, generally agrees that it is desirable to adopt a policy which will secure that certain kinds of public work, whether Government work or the work of local authorities, which calls to be done, but which need not necessarily be done at once, should be surveyed in advance for the purpose of securing that, when fluctuations of employment or of trade make unemployment prevalent, it should be possible to meet it by putting those public works in hand immediately. In point of fact, shortly before war broke out, as I remember very well, and I think others here will remember, a Committee was appointed by the Government then in power for the purpose of scheduling public works, whether of the Government or of local authorities, which it was agreed were proper works to undertake,
    1004
    but which it was found need not be undertaken, and might be kept in cold storage until the urgency of finding such employment was upon us; but this, like many other things, lapsed because of the outbreak of war.
    That method, which, admittedly, is a good method, is one which essentially depends upon prevision. I do not believe that, with the best will in the world, the Minister of Labour or anyone else can devise now, in the very centre of this storm, a business-like use of those opportunities for the benefit of these unhappy people. My right hon. Friend will, I know, do his best, as the late Government did their best, but it is a wholly different thing to set to work to find out what those public works are, to draw up estimates and plans for them, to have the machinery for carrying them out in preparation so that they may be taken advantage of when the emergency arises, from waiting until the emergency does arise, and then endeavouring desperately to find, by conference with employers and others, how to provide the work. I hope I have made it plain that I am not seeking to throw blame upon any particular quarter, but I believe it to be a criticism which is not unjustified upon public opinion and public attention as a whole to this tremendous subject. The difficulties of the Government in trying to direct public attention, when public attention is not interested, to questions of unemployment, must be tremendous; but the real moral to be drawn from our present situation is that, while we have to deal with the terrible situation which faces us to-day, our real resolve ought to be that we will not again, when trade begins to improve, allow this problem to fall into the background, but will determine that, when trade does get better, we will lay the foundation for a real provision against unemployment. It is an old saying, but I think it applies, and I think it may be regarded as Parliamentary in the circumstances, that
    "The devil was sick, the devil a monk would be;
    The devil was well, the devil a monk was he."
    The truth is that, with regard both to unemployment insurance and to the organisation of relief work, we can never get a real solution until we are prepared to face this subject at a time when it is not

    1005
    pressing because there are demonstrations of the unemployed, but when, on the contrary, it is pressing because there is a real opportunity for making proper provision. Then I should like to make this further point. The Prime Minister has said, and I think his statement was generally accepted and approved, that he regarded such a demand as was made by the demonstration of the unemployed as a demand which was properly to be attended to by the Department concerned. While that is true, it by no means follows that the subject which is raised by this Amendment is one which can be dealt with within the four corners of a Department, however efficient and courteous it may be. If it be true that employment or unemployment depends in a very large measure upon questions of trade policy and foreign policy, as the late Prime Minister clearly pointed out, it is quite clear that an Amendment of this sort cannot really be discussed from the Departmental point of view altogether. If it be true, and I think it is generally recognised, that there is so great a difference between wise foreign policy and unwise foreign policy that it may affect the employment or unemployment of tens of thousands of our fellow-citizens in many trades, then it is quite obvious that the subject of this Amendment cannot be disposed of even by a list, however elaborate and however carefully explained, which is brought forward by the Minister of Labour, of the work which he proposes to get out. Unless I missed it, I do not think that the Minister of Labour, in the course of his account of what is proposed to be done by way of encouraging the resumption of work, had anything to say at all on the suggestion that the building of houses was a form in which it was most desirable that the Government should provide work.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): That was dealt with yesterday.
    Sir J. SIMON: I only wanted to make the observation, and I think it is a true one, that in the list of proposals which we have had to-day I do not think we did get from the Minister of Labour any reference to housing at all. On that may I make this final observation? The formula, "Work, not dole," is one that has been very much canvassed and discussed. I was glad to hear the Minister of Labour say that really the use of the
    1006
    word "dole" in this connection is gravely improper. After all, three-fourths of the unemployment insurance payment comes, not from the State at all, but from the industry, whether it be the employer or the workman; and a cruel wrong is done to many people who are in receipt of unemployment relief, under the present scheme, in speaking as though this was something which was indistinguishable from the mere relief of a pauper out of public funds. I fear very much that "Work rather than dole," though a very convenient formula, does not in itself carry anybody very far. The truth is that, though the need for finding work and putting unemployed men to work is so urgent on moral as well as on other grounds, the difficulty of carrying that plan into effect right over the whole length and breadth of unemployment is almost insuperable.
    Consider these two very obvious difficulties. First of all, the scheme of work as against doles is obviously far less flexible. Work has to be done at a particular place, and you have to get the unemployed to that place for the purpose; and it does not by any means always happen that the place where the work might be done is a place where it is possible even to house the people whom you desire thus to put to work. Consider, again, this. It is useless to speak of work in place of doles unless you go further and make sure that the work you have in mind is the sort of work which the unemployed man is able to do. It is not a kindness, but a cruelty, for those who have not thought it out to suggest that a man who is, unhappily, out of work in some highly-skilled trade, say clockmaking, is necessarily going to be better off because the community find him work to do of a sort which that kind of worker, unhappily, would not be able to undertake. I think we ought fully to face these considerations before we declare, as I am glad to know the Government have declared, and as I think the House generally will declare, for the provision of work rather than a mere payment of money, so far as such an alternative can be practically pursued.
    It certainly is not going to turn out to be a better venture from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in very many cases, for I am afraid it will always be true that the provision of work instead of doles is, as a matter of fact, an

    1007
    expensive thing for the State rather than being necessarily a source of great profit. But that does not alter the fundamental fact. The fundamental fact is that when one is faced with a situation so serious as this, extending to the length that unemployment now extends, we have for the time being and as a temporary measure,, in the interest of the moral, in the interest of the general prospects of the population itself, to accept as far as it can be accepted the method of work rather than the method of money payment, notwithstanding the fact that pure economics will prove that the prospect is not very satisfactory. The Minister of Labour spoke of the storm period having passed. He spoke of the signs of the storm beginning to abate. I would urge hon. Members in all quarters of the House to remember, even though the storm is beginning to abate, that that is no reason at all why we should relax our efforts to provide a satisfactory solution of this question. It has been the tragedy of unemployment in the past that not only has trade gone in cycles but unemployment Debates have gone in cycles, and if we can secure, in spite of mistakes in the past, that the interest of the public and the House of Commons is no longer going in cycles, we shall have made a satisfactory contribution to the discussion of this almost insoluble question.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I rise to add my quota of argument to this very old problem in its new and more desperate shape as presented to us here to-day. Having listened to the Labour Minister, I feel very much disappointed with the very barren and totally inadequate suggestions that he makes in connection with new plans. In effect, they amount in the sum total to further definite financial obligations on the part of the Government of something less than £4,000,000, plus £10,000,000 from the Road Fund and the £25,000,000 guarantee. The guarantee is really only in the nature of a loan, the whole of which may eventually be returned to the State, so that the total definite commitments that the Government outline are summed up in that £1,000,000 on their general policy, the £600,000, the £170,000 and the £100,000 as mentioned by the Labour Minister, together with work to be put in hand. As for the storm abating, I think those
    1008
    who know and who have been through previous cycles of trade depression can see no indication of any abatement at all, but rather an increase in the volume of distress that such storms bring with them—desolation, hardship and destruction in the homes of the people. This figure which is mentioned of 1,300,000 as being at the moment unemployed must not be regarded as a true reflex of the state of unemployment. That is simply the live register. It means that all those who, by the tightening up of the Regulations, have ceased to become interested in signing on at Labour Exchanges have dropped out from that number. I should estimate the number at rather nearer 1,500,000 who are unemployed. And the 1,300,000 as shown on the live register must not be permitted to mislead people into the belief that that number of people are in receipt of unemployment benefit. There are fewer than 1,000,000 in receipt of unemployment benefit, and that, I am sure, the Labour Minister will be the first to admit, because in July last, when this matter was tinder discussion, I suggested that somewhere within the region of 1,000,000 would be in receipt of unemployment benefit. So that, far from any hope arising from the speech and the plans outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, there is really cause for greater anxiety.
    It rather looks like death-bed repentance on the part of so many hon. Members who begin to talk of the opening up of trade and the glorious avenues which can be broadened and opened out to find employment for those who are in distress. They can all talk in terms of the future and forget the tragedy of the present. We want something more than the scheme as outlined by the Labour Minister for those who have come down that long trail of suffering and that this period of the year are looking for that greater degree of assistance they are justified in asking from the nation which, by its neglect, is largely responsible for the chaotic condition of industry and commerce and the condition of its people. We are most of us back from our constituencies. There is not a Member returned to the House who has not had presented to him some corner or large area, as the case may be, in his constituency where the lives of the people are being crushed out in consequence of

    1009
    the worsened environment which, comes as one of those things associated with this plague of unemployment. Your housing problem, under these circumstances, will ease itself, for, indeed, I know cases of people who, not being able to pay the rents asked, are now herded together in the single-room accommodation which the late Minister of Health thought was all that was necessary for any married couple. Coming back with this impression and the knowledge of the struggles that are going on, does it not appeal to us? We have seen men and women who were thrifty and had saved their little Post Office savings amounts and had little investments in War Savings Certificates. Meet any of them now. From early in 1921 right down to the present they have been bandied between the period of unemployed pay, back to the Board of Guardians and back again. That in itself is enough to dishearten, depress and make desperate people who are confronted with the barriers and difficulties which are placed in their way. This is having a paralysing effect upon the nation as a nation, and it is doing something worse. Do the Government for a moment think of the infliction that we are ourselves imposing upon the child life of the nation? What is to be the possible future of a nation that says to its adults, "You were heroes, you were stalwart Britishers at one time. You worked hard and you took risks. The incidence of trade and commerce put you out of employment. We have commenced to consider the matter"? Could you not have considered it 30 years ago? To my knowledge the unemployment problem 30 years ago was before the country in a serious form and yet from 30 years you come right on and then all that you have to offer is nothing more substantial than sympathy and pity. What you have done is to depress the manhood and the womanhood of the country. You have still further inflicted a permanent injury upon the child life of the country and destroyed in many cases all opportunities of physical and mental development on their part. Your Labour Ministry will be well able to provide that little extra amount that the Government foreshadows out of the denial of benefit to the single men and women, and married persons, carrying with it the withholding even of 1s. a week to the child under the age of 14.
    1010
    8.0 P.M.
    The Labour Minister says that for this fourth period, from the commencement of November until the end of June next year, twelve weeks' benefit is assured, and there is a possibility of another ten weeks to those who can satisfy the Employment Exchange Committee. But every time these appeals are made there is some new Regulation tightened up or some increased difficulty put in the Way. The latest difficulty put in the way, to my mind, notwithstanding what the Labour Minister said, if carried out will at least wipe out another 200,000 of those who have been permitted to draw unemployment benefit. A man who has gone through so many weeks has to appear before the Committee and is asked, "Have you sought for employment?" and the poor man looks bewildered. He has always thought that the Employment Exchange asked employers always to make application to the Exchange if they require workmen, but they expect that poor man under these distressing circumstances to take his weary walk all the day from factory to factory and workshop to workshop with the certainty that there is no chance of employment. Unless he does that it is now adduced as a further reason why he should be struck off the list of unemployment benefit. You are taking away the 5s. for the wife and 1s. for the child. We are approaching the period when many people will be saying, "Peace on earth, goodwill towards all men," and at the same time your Labour Ministry are tightening up their Regulations with the distinct purpose of disqualifying recipients from unemployment benefit. I sometimes feel that a nation that destroys its human fabric by neglect, as the late Government and the present Government appear to be likely to do, will destroy all that is valuable, by the destruction of the ambition for better environment, the struggle upwards towards a greater degree of freedom and sustenance, and a broader view of life and all that it means. Every attempt in that direction which the State pushes back means that you are undermining the fabric of the whole social system. Just as these inflictions come into the homes of the working people, they are bound to react on the whole social fabric of the nation.
    A good deal of the stultification may be due to the selfishness that is engendered

    1011
    and encouraged by our social system. We had a curious spectacle to-day of the late Minister for Health saying that there were certain great firms who had dead surpluses at the bank, and that they wanted to put them to some use. Why are they not sufficiently patriotic to put these dead surpluses into active operation to employ people? They will not do that, because they cannot get their pound of flesh, because the return is not sufficient to satisfy their greed as it is summed up in profit and interest. Therefore, that money remains out of use, and, in turn, their selfish action is throwing out of gear the human element anxious and willing to co-operate for the mutual benefit of the country. It seems to me that a considerable overhauling of the whole of our social system is required long before we approach anything near these periods.
    The State has promised nothing for the future. All that it is attempting to do is to encourage somebody else to do something We say that it is a national responsibility, and that the victims of a great international upheaval ought not to be dependent upon the Government requesting somebody else to do that which the nation ought to take upon itself. The nation ought to shoulder its full responsibility. Too often we hear of the huge amounts of the provision that the Government has made. Lest it should be forgotten, I will repeat some of the figures. I remember on a previous occasion the ex-Prime Minister said that the Government were spending hundreds of millions on this matter, leading the public to believe that the whole of that money for unemployment payments had been provided by the Government. It is estimated, according to the figures of the late Government, that from November, 1920, until June, 1923, £140,000,000 will have been paid in unemployment benefit. That was on the assumption of carrying £1,250,000 unemployed persons. That has been over-estimated, and it has been brought about in consequence of the tightening of regulations. The State's contribution out of that sum would be £35,000,000. For arterial roads the amount of £10,500,000 was allotted. Whether the whole of that has been spent or not, I cannot say. Settlement in Canada of ex-service men
    1012
    was estimated at £750,000. For the emigration of ex-service men to other parts of the Empire, £250,000 was provided, and for trade facilities guarantees £22,500,000 is the figure which is now-given. Summing up the whole of these figures, and others given by the Minister, we get an aggregate sum of £101,500,000, which represents the full liability of the State, including the period immediately before us.
    In making that provision, what has happened? The Government has encouraged local authorities to incur debts. Many of those debts are going to bring about an equally serious crisis in local finances in the very near future, because the very people for whom the State suggests it is making provision will have to meet the obligations of the loans which have been raised, and will eventually have to pay either through service or through rates. In that connection, I have had a statement supplied by one municipality. I mention this to show that in agreeing to pay 65 per cent, of the interest of the loan, as in this particular case, the Government, far from doing a great kindness to the locality, and far from taking credit to themselves that this scheme will employ many thousands of people, must remember that the local authority will have a burden round their neck for a period of 60 years. In repayment of their share of the redemption fund and their proportion of the interest on the amount of £745,681,000, which is the loan for the works for which they have got Government help, the local authority will be called upon to pay £1,316,000 in interest and redemption. Therefore, for a long period of years the Government, by putting the greater share of the burden upon the locality, is crippling this local authority and other local authorities, and stultifying any effort at improvement which they may care to indulge in the very near future.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I do not quite understand the hon. Member's figures. If he will give them to me, I will look into the matter.
    Mr. HAYDAY: The figures are from the City of Nottingham. I have given the amount of the loan and the anticipated liability of the local authority, and how they will have to meet the payments over a period of years. The total sum which they will have to pay amounts to

    1013
    £1,316,000. If you take into consideration some of the great industrial centres where there is a larger population and a greater volume of suffering, because of the casual nature of the employment at the best of times, it seems to me that you must have imposed as a result of that little subsidy, a liability of about £100,000,000 upon the local authorities. It is not the right thing to shelve national responsibilities upon local authorities which have a great degree of suffering and distress in their midst. The poorer the locality the greater the number of unemployed, and in consequence of that they will find themselves with an increased burden. If the effect on the local authorities is so serious, how much more serious is it upon the boards of guardians.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: How long is the period of repayment for the £1,300,000'?
    Mr. HAYDAY: Sixty years. The final ten years' payment will be at equal to a rate of l¼d. At one period, 20 years hence, the local authority will be paying £46,086 per annum in redemption. The Government have actually got the boards of guardians to come along and to take over a national responsibility, and then the Government say that they are going to hasten facilities for the boards of guardians to borrow, instead of the Government facing the responsibility themselves. I would urge the Minister of Labour to remember that there is another gap coming, and coming at a very serious time. The first 12 weeks will be up before the end of January and, if at the end of January all these cases are reviewed and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people are turned down, because of an uncoveuanted or extended period, we shall be at a time when we cannot face so serious a gap. I urge the right hon. Gentleman that before the storm breaks he should anticipate that. That is not very far to look forward to, and, as sure as we are in this House tonight, unless some provision is made to avoid a gap, the storm will burst in a manner that may be unpleasant for all of us to anticipate.
    The public are led to believe sometimes by the Press that the workers themselves have contributed nothing to the unemployment, benefit. The workers who are the sufferers have done more than the State or any other section of the community.
    1014
    Of the £140,000,000 paid in unemployment benefit, £50,000,000 represents the contribution from the workers. The trade unions have paid about £10,000,000 in unemployment benefit from their contributions. Then there is a reduction in wages of £700,000,000 per annum, a sum almost six times greater than that the Government has found, with all its resources. The hon. Member for West Tox-teth (Sir R. Houston), who spoke about disputes and strikes being the cause of unemployment, spoke with his tongue in his cheek. He either knew nothing about the subject or he was misleading the House. We were told when these wage reductions were proposed that if the workers would submit to the reductions industry could recover and their unfortunate comrades who were unemployed could be reabsorbed into industry, and by their sacrifice they would help to let food go into the homes for the wives and children of those men. And they did it, and the result has been that the greater the sacrifice the greater the increase in the amount of unemployment.
    On the other hand, as the late Minister of Health has said, there are people with surplus money in the bank waiting for profitable investments. The spectacle is. one which no serious-minded man can contemplate with satisfaction. The people have sacrificed £700,000,000. They have made a greater contribution than the State or than the great captains of industry. For many of them I have the greatest respect as individuals, though I do not regard them with friendship when they use all the advantages of our present economic system to bolster up their own resources in times like these. As a result of that process of the pulling down of wages there are about four million workers with below 50s. a week. If the right hon. Gentleman's Department will make inquiries, he will find that while the working people have sacrificed £700,000,000 per annum, in the belief that they were going to provide employment for their less fortunate comrades, three-quarters of a million of them have brought themselves down to a standard at or less than 35s. per week, which is a long way below a living standard or a standard which would enable them to live in a decent two-roomed apartment, and which does not enable them to give their children proper

    1015
    food that will enable them to take advantage of the educational facilities of our Education Department, because no average family can reasonably exist on 50s. a week and downwards.
    One other point is the great contribution which the industrial masses of this country are making. Indirect taxation on foodstuffs has gone up out of all proportion to the average figure which appears in the cost of living columns of the Board of Trade Gazette. I have seen it published that the average family of two adults and five children spent on their food, with the tobacco for the man and possibly a glass of beer, indirect taxation averaging 14s. 2d. per week. After taking £700,000,000 off their wages, you then take 14s. 2d. a week taxes on the necessities which they have to buy with that lesser income. In this connection I appeal to the Minister of Labour in reference to the exclusion of single persons. Perhaps he does not know many of the hardships which are being inflicted in consequence of this. The head of the family is at work, may be in receipt of only 35s. or £2 per week, and there may be a single daughter or a single son who has come to the period for uncovenamted benefit. But if the man is employed that is sufficient for them to be struck off benefit. Now on the subject of aliens. The Minister of Labour has full power to make any Regulations which he deems fit. May I point out a great hardship in this connection in certain circumstances? I have here a list showing 98 aliens who are members of the Cigar Makers and Tobacco Workers' Trade Union. Their average age is 58 years 9 months, and their average domicile in this country is 45 years. They pay their contributions and they are entitled to the benefit until they have exhausted their right, but they are denied the uncovenanted benefits because they are aliens. The debt accumulates against them in the future, and when they are re-absorbed into employment they have got to go on paying contributions until the debt is cleared off, though they are denied any benefit. I would suggest that the Minister might take that matter into consideraion.
    I would urge finally that some very drastic step must be taken. It is not merely lip service to say that the position is very desperate. I do not think it wrong to say that these people are getting
    1016
    hungrier and angrier every day. You cannot reason with a man who has left his home without any food, who has a wife and family and is trying to retain for them some semblance of respectability, with his children going to school to get the meals given under the Provision of Meals Act. There can be no sadder spectacle that that of a man who within the knowledge of respected citizens has, during that depressing period, started to stoop, to break up, with the lines drawn about his face, with his brow becoming furrowed while he himself grows discontented and disgruntled, while at home his wife, full of anxiety, is prematurely aged and all that they can look to is a promise for the future. You cannot reason and talk even economics with those people. What they require is some material fuel to light up the dying embers within them, to give them the kind of physical make-up that will enable them to make their contribution, when the time comes again, in an effective manner to the development of the common industry in this country.
    Sir EDWIN STOCKTON: In addressing this House for the first time, I feel sure that I may rely on the kind indulgence which is always shown so generously to new Members. I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on having called into conference the railway managers and the railway chairmen. I believe that the railway companies can do a great deal towards helping to solve the temporary difficulty of unemployment, and I am sure that they are keen and anxious to do all they can to help. I would suggest that the Government pursue a similar policy with other big industrial organisations with a view of seeing whether they cannot stir some of these other centres to proceed with work which no doubt has been under contemplation at some time. There must be all over the country many large and important works of various kinds contemplated, both by local authorities and by big industrial organisations, which have been kept back for various reasons, and I think the Government might make a special effort to urge the various authorities and industrial organisations to do all they can to speed up this work so that the temporary depression will be at any rate relieved.

    1017
    There are two points in regard to railway development which I wish to bring forward in the interests of progress. The first is this: In making agreements which may be necessary, either with landowners or with local bodies, the railway authorities may have certain difficulties in arriving at those agreements. It may be necessary, therefore, for the Prime Minister to use his influence and the influence of the Government in helping to remove such difficulties, so that red tape may not delay essential operations. Secondly, I suggest that the Government, in talking over these matters with the railway companies, should see that the work which is devised is devised with the object of finding work for the real unemployed, and not extra work for men who are at present in the railway service. It is necessary that that should be kept in the forefront. On the general question of unemployment, I suggest that it is not fair to assume that any section in this House has a monopoly of sympathy with the unemployed. Every Member of this newly elected House has been before his constituents, and has had to try his best to deal with the unemployment problem. No man is worthy of a place in this House unless he is prepared to use every effort to solve this terrible difficulty. Everyone with any heart at all must feel sympathy with the unemployed.
    I represent a big commercial constituency in Manchester. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) will agree that the unemployment problem in Manchester, bad as it is, is not as bad as in many other great centres of industry. Twelve months ago there were 40,000 unemployed in Manchester. At present there are 30,000. I do not suggest that a decease of 10,000 in the total in 12 months is anything to brag about, but it is a change in the right direction. The saddest part of the problem there is that 50 to 60 per cent, of the 30,000 men are ex-service men. I have done my best in Manchester to persuade business people to be more enterprising and to do all they can to find work for these men. I have done my best, because any man with heart or sympathy must realise the crying injustice that men who have fought for us and saved our country should be left without work or any resources to fall back upon. There is only one real cure for this problem, and that is to procure a solid restoration of trade. The greater
    1018
    proportion of our trade in Manchester depends on our exports. If we are to be at all successful with our export trade, it is essential that we have confidence abroad. Everyone will agree with that statement. There can be no denying the fact that for a long time there has not been real confidence abroad in regard to our foreign policy. I am hoping that under the present Government that confidence will be restored.
    I stand here as a business man. I am not ashamed to belong to the Conservative party, because I believe that it is the party which will bring about the restoration of trade which is necessary, by restoring confidence abroad. But we want more than confidence abroad; we want confidence at home. As a business man, I say that the proposals for confiscation and the attacks on private enterprise are having a very disastrous effect upon trade. Hon. Members on the-Labour Benches will contradict that statement. But any man with experience of business is bound to admit that these proposals and suggestions are doing grievous harm to the restoration of trade. They are not helping to solve the unemployment problem, but are making the problem a more serious one, at any rate in Manchester, and instead of helping to re-establish confidence they are having the opposite effect, and are bringing about an increase of unemployment. We hear much of the war on private enterprise. I speak as one who has gone right through the mill, from the time when I was an errand lad on the streets of Manchester. I know exactly what it is to go through the difficulties from the bottom. It has been private enterprise which has made the commercial prosperity of this country in the past, and it is private enterprise only which will restore trade and provide employment.
    What is the alternative to private enterprise? It is State trading. Those who have had any experience of State trading know its crippling effect on trade. As far as my knowledge goes, the less we have of it the better. I was fighting in Manchester during the War period against State control and State trading, and there is no business man in Manchester with any knowledge or experience of business, who would not condemn State trading root and branch as something which is against the best interests of the people. Private

    1019
    enterprise means sound and healthy competition; State trading means inflation and stagnation. Hon. Members of the Labour party do not agree with that statement. Why? They have not learnt the A B C of business, or they would agree. I am not attacking them as a party. I believe the Labour party are as sincere in their intentions as any other section of the community. But with the business knowledge I have had, from the bottom to the position I now hold, I know that it is private enterprise which has built up our prosperity in the past, and that it is private enterprise which will restore our business in the future.
    Mr. SEXTON: It is not hon. Members who sit on this side of the House who claim a monopoly of sympathy with the unemployed. In fact that monopoly belongs to hon. Gentlemen on the other side. They have all the sympathy but none of the practical application, and that is where we differ from them. They have expressed sympathy; we have at least put forward a serious programme whereby unemployment can be remedied. I hope I may not be regarded as transgressing the rules of Debate if I take this opportunity of referring to the present House of Commons and its constitution. It is a very interesting and very strange House of Commons. The last House of Commons suffered from an embarrassment of numbers in support of the Government. So great was the number of Government supporters that we on this side, found these benches congested with representatives of the then existing Coalition. That contamination, luckily, is removed in this Parliament and we run no risk on this side of the House now. At the same time this is a strangely constituted House of Commons. It is wonderfully and fearfully made. In the last Session of Parliament voices proceeding from this side of the House were scarcely to be distinguished from those of the Labour party, while at the same time they were supporting the Government. An incident occurred concerning myself, when from the Labour benches I was actually denounced by a Member of the Coalition from beneath my own hat.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I presume the hon. Member will connect this argument with the subject before the House.
    Mr. SEXTON: If I am transgressing, Sir, of course I am subject to your ruling. I may be allowed to refer to the fact that I was somewhat puzzled when I came into the House after this Parliament assembled. I found new faces in old places and old faces in new places. I claim your indulgence to say that that has brought about a confusion of tongues —almost a kind of Tower of Babel. We have had speeches to-night on unemployment and we have also a confusion of policies. There are five parties in this House where there were only three in the last Parliament, and all of them claim to be able and willing to solve the unemployment problem, and all have different methods of doing so. We have the Independent Liberals, whose remedy for unemployment, so far as I know, is economy, retrenchment and reform. We have a new party, the embodiment of which is the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold)—the Communist party, whose policy, so far as I am concerned, is not only impracticable but—and I do not say this with any personal feeling—positively repulsive.
    Mr. NEWBOLD: On a point of Order. The hon. Member has not had the opportunity of hearing it yet.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
    Mr. SEXTON: We have still another party in the House, which also has its remedy for unemployment, in the person of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), whose policy inspires me, at all events, with a premature thirst. Then we have the Labour party, whose policy is at least courageous. It is not a policy devised for the purpose of fishing for votes. Had that been the case, we would have been returned here in double the numbers we possess to-day. An hon. Member of this House said to me, "You did not catch many fish with the bait you dangled before the electors this time." I said, "No, perhaps not: but we have the consolation of knowing that we drowned a devil of a lot of worms." Now we come to the policy of the Government. I have searched in vain for their policy. The only thing I can find is that the Government is now putting into practice a policy which, not many months ago, they roundly denounced, and that is the policy of "ca' canny." It will be within the

    1021
    recollection of this House and of the country that after the signing of the Armistice the cry was "Increase production." and "ca' canny" was denounced. Eminent leaders of the political and industrial side of the Labour movement joined in that cry. Their portraits— sot always very flattering—disfigured the landscapes, the railway stations and the hoardings of this country, imploring industrial corporations to increase the output as the only method of saving the country and solving the unemployment problem. To-day we find the Government itself practising the very policy it at one time denounced, and saying, "Sit quiet; do nothing; be tranquil." This is a strange policy for the chief in command of the Ship of State to take, with rocks and shoals all round him. For the ship, the same old ship, there is a different crew, which is the result of a mutiny inspired and organised by the cabin boy, who, though no longer on the ship's articles, is still directing the course in the offing. Those who did not join the mutineers were compelled to walk the plank. Others, with the ex-chief, are marooned below the gangway. Those who deserted the ex-Prime Minister are still on board, but they are in irons and held as hostages, owing to the promises and the bargains they made during the recent General Election. The change of crew would be all right under normal conditions when the voyage was ended and the cargo safely delivered, but the conditions are not normal, and there are others, who were rejected by the authority which the right hon. Gentleman always rolls like a sween morsel under his tongue, the public, as unfit for active service, who are hovering in the wake or over the taffrail, waiting for the cry of "Man overboard" to jump down on the quarter deck and take his place. It is with this motley crew that the commander of the ship embarks on an uncharted sea close-hauled, with breakers on his lee, and his weather leeches ominously shaking, and asks for calm and tranquillity.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I fail to see the connection between these nautical metaphors and unemployment.
    Mr. SEXTON: I do not want to question your authority, Sir, but surely I am quite in order in pointing out that the policy of tranquillity and calm is a mistaken policy, and I respectfully submit
    1022
    that I am in order in dealing with the question in the way I am doing. There is only one region where such a policy should be exercised, and that is the region of perpetual calm, and even there the currents are so treacherous that you generally find yourself driven into the doldrums. That is where the right hon. Gentleman is taking his ship and his crew to-day.
    In every well-ordered State, the man who is willing to work and produce wealth ought to be a national asset, instead of, as to-day, a national liability. What is the policy of the Labour party? It has already been extensively dealt with and mischievously and deliberately misrepresented in the country and in this House. Let me take the two points. First of all, there is the capital levy. All of us have had to face that in the constituencies. I had to face it, and my opponent and his supporters very ingeniously attempted to turn the tables upon me, as upon others, by calling it the levy on capital. The representation he made was that if you get this levy on capital, capital is machinery, coal mines, factories, fields, and workshops, and that therefore the levy that the Labour party proposes is on the works, factories, machines, mines, and fields of the country. He next pointed out that if Labour men were returned the capitalists would take their capital out of the country. It would be a bit of a job for the capitalist to take his coal mines, factories, and fields, and cart them away, yet that was the interpretation put upon the capital levy. The capital levy has been so extensively dealt with that all I want to say about it is this, that, if it be true—and I believe it is true—that the Labour party have expert evidence and the authority of the best brains in finance in this country, that in five, six, or seven years the burden of the National Debt could be reduced by 50 per cent., and if the arguments of the other side have any weight at all, that if you relieve industry from the burden of national taxation you will also increase employment and diminish unemployment, surely, I say, if that be true, that policy ought to commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
    But if they do not like the capital levy, we offer the Government and their supporters an alternative. The programme of the Labour party includes the

    1023
    policy of the taxation of land values. [Laughter.] That is humorous, is it? Let me explain, and perhaps your hilarity will be increased when I do, and you will laugh on the wrong side of your mouth. The Borough of Bootle has been mentioned as the Tom Tiddler's ground of the housing question. I worked at Bootle for many years in the docks, and of all the places in this country, the most unfortunate example that could be quoted is the Borough of Bootle. Let me point out Bootle as an example. I will not name the landowner, because he happens to be a close friend of my own, and I have been proud of his acquaintance and association for many years. I am not blaming the individual—he has inherited the economic evil, that is all—but I am blaming the system, which allows one man, or a handful of men, to take advantage of a system which is the root, in my opinion, of the whole of the unemployment to-day.
    9.0 P.M.
    When the trade and commerce of Liverpool and the Mersey were expanding, a narrow strip of seashore was required by the Dock Board, but before they could put a spade into it they had to pay a fine of £80,00 or £100,000 to the landlord who claimed the foreshore. The Dock Board, in return for that investment—and the Dock Board only pays 2i per cent, on invested capital—had to charge the shipowner heavy dock and harbour dues. Docks could not be built without engineers and navvies. Docks would be of no use without ships, and ships could not be sailed without seamen and firemen, or discharged without dock labourers. Therefore, the sand dunes became necessary for houses. The Dock Board, being fined by the landowner, and taxed imperially and taxed locally, went to the point of least resistance and cut down the wages of the dock labourer. The sand dunes are wanted for houses. Before that they were not worth, at the outside, more than £2 per acre, but, owing to the needs of the employer and workmen, the value of those sand dunes is raised to £3,000 per acre. They were let at that valuation on a short lease for a speculator to come along and take the clay out and make bricks, and I understand that for every 1,000 bricks taken out of that land, in addition to the price paid for it, they had to pay a
    1024
    royalty of 2s. 6d. When all the clay was-got out, and there was a big quarry, all the factories around were invited to dump their refuse into it, and for every load they dumped into it they were charged 6d. When the quarry was filled up the rubbish forming the land was sold to a jerry Builder at £3,000 an acre. Jerry builders, appealing to an ignorant electorate, captured the local Health Committee, and passed their own plans for making streets and building houses. Epidemics broke out, and, as a result, £17,000 was obtained from the Local Government Board for extra hospital accommodation for the victims. One hundred years ago the whole of that land was purchased for £12,000. To-day the ground rents are enormous. The people who have created all that value are fined hundreds of thousands of pounds for rates, while those who created none of the value pay not one brass cent to the local exchequer. It may be said that the landowner pays Income Tax. He does, but the employer and the workman who increased the value of the land make the landlord's income before they get one of their own.
    One of the remedies I would suggest would be in the direction of relieving industry of local taxation. We have another suggestion to make, and we have made it in this House many and many a time. I made it myself on the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Instead of fining the employer and the workman, and asking the State to pay a subsidy, legislation should be passed to secure that industry should bear the burden of its own unemployment by a small levy per ton on output. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench on this side that panic legislation for immediate relief in urgent cases is not going permanently to solve the unemployment problem. I agree with him again when he said it is no time to deal with the unemployment problem when you are in the middle of the trouble, as we are now. Those who like myself, have had to tramp about by the week for work and take shelter in the casual ward, know the meaning of unemployment. I was glad to recognise, in the hopeful statement of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Minister of Health last night, that there is to be some departure from the silly policy the

    1025
    Government have adopted of ca-canny. In the statement last night I saw a gleam of hope. It is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to build unto himself an ark, and take with him a few of his speeches in order to save himself from the deluge which is bound to come, if he does not "buck up" and do something. He may send out his dove-like messenger in the shape of private enterprise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hawk-like messenger."] It is bound to return to him bringing with it, not the historical olive-branch: it will come back a poor unfortunate draggletailed crow in the shape of, what shall I call it? However that may be, the right hon. Gentleman is doomed to float about in his ark while the waters are rising. By the waters I mean the voice of a democracy intelligently expressed through the ballot box, and which would express itself in such a manner that his ark will never ground on the top of Mount Ararat.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: My remarks will be brief, and I hope also non-controversial, for the condition of the country is much too serious for us to indulge in controversy about it. Hon. Members, wherever they may sit in this House, I am sure, must have brought away from the elections a very sad, disturbing, and haunting picture and remembrance of the poverty-stricken condition of a large proportion of their constituents. Speaking for the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I am sure I am not exaggerating when I say there is 75 per cent, of the male population out of employment. These people are all the more deserving of pity because they are the unconscious victims of a policy which they have never had an opportunity of understanding, much less of controlling. If the cases of some of the ex-Cabinet Ministers have earned our sympathy because they were committed to a policy about which they were never consulted, I am sure the man in the street is much more deserving of our sympathy in the like circumstances.
    I am glad to recognise that the policy of the Government—and I am sure the House will recognise it if it has any sense of fairness—is a great advance on the policy of its predecessor. It does recognise that the conscience of the people of this country is no longer willing to accept as fair provision the dole, with all
    1026
    its consequences. I hope the policy adumbrated by my right hon. Friend here this evening will lead to a very large number of people in this country receiving, not the dole, but work and wages. I must confess, however, to some feeling of disappointment that the Government are not going in for a more active housing policy. The housing condition of the people of this country is a reproach to our civilisation and a blot upon our social system. If this great social injustice is to be removed, it must be removed by a national policy, and the national policy must bring into action not only private enterprise, but the enterprise of the local authority. I do not want to argue as between private, enterprise and State enterprise, but I cannot help feeling that if we are forced to take private enterprise there is no use making a fetish of it. If private enterprise fails in solving our housing problem, all I can say is so much the worse for it!
    I cannot help wishing that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health were a Member of this House. I am sure he would agree with me in the views I have expressed, because I remember a couple of Parliaments ago he and I were very keen members of the Unionist Social Reform Committee, and he introduced a Bill into this House. He very nearly got it passed. It was to enable local authorities to avail themselves of State subsidies in the matter of housing. Mr. John Burns, the Minister of a Liberal Government, denounced with great eloquence my right hon. Friend's Liberalism, though T am quite sure my right hon. Friend would not himself wish to be accused of professing that melancholy creed. I confess to a certain amount of disappointment, too, because I see very little chance that the provision the Government is making will do much to help those who deserve our sympathy in a peculiar degree. I have the honour to represent a city which was formerly the centre of one of the most prosperous industries in this country, namely, the lace trade. It gave employment to a large number of people who have almost a hereditary skill, one might say, in making lace, and in making large machines. These latter cannot be made abroad. The only people who can make them are the people of Nottingham. Seventy-five per cent. of

    1027
    these machines are now standing idle. What is more, they have been standing idle for a very long time, and no less than a quarter of a million of money has been paid in the last 12 months in Nottingham.
    At Long Eaton, with a population of only 20,000, there has been paid out £95,000 in unemployed relief. I am told that there are innumerable instances of men who, by their own skill, energy and grit, have worked themselves up into a position to be employers of labour, who are now sweeping the streets and are only too glad to get any casual job. This unfortunate industry has been the victim of two or three knock-out blows. It is suffering from intense foreign competition fostered by the depreciation of the mark and the franc. The American tariff has been raised from 60 per cent, to 90 per cent. The French tariff has been raised from 6 francs per kilo to 28 francs per kilo. I do not want to urge the Government to do anything which will be any great departure from the Free Trade system of this country. At the same time, I would like them if they can to include this industry in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and so in a measure relieve it from this intense foreign competition. I hope they will not hesitate so to include it. There is another way to help our export trade, particularly with France, which, I am sure, should not offend the susceptibilities of the keenest Free Trader. I cannot help feeling that it would do good if the President of the Board of Trade were to make it known to our French friends that if they do not abate the severity of their tariff, they must abandon the hope of a reduction of the duties on the wines and spirits which they send to this country. In such a way the French tariff might possibly be mitigated. I hope, too, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to America that he will point out to the American President that it is desirable to reduce the American tariff and that if we are playing the game in paying off our debt to the States, the Americans must play the game in allowing us the opportunity to pay off that debt I cannot help feeling, however, that to get to the bottom of the depression of trade in this country we
    1028
    must face the fact that there is no hope unless we can improve our export trade.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) that this is a political question, and I urge the Government to give us a foreign policy which will be helpful to our foreign trade. I was a rebel myself against the late Coalition Government, because I thought they were pursuing a policy which was consistent neither with the dictates of humanity nor the progress of our trade and commerce. The policy the late Government introduced in Asia Minor did nothing but inflict terrible disaster there, and it ruined all prospects of trade in that region. Our policy in the past with Russia has undoubtedly increased the volume of unemployment in this country, and our policy in regard to Germany has greatly hampered our export trade by throwing the whole economic system into chaos and anarchy. I hope the Government will not prefer the oil interests in Mosul to the interests of the working population here who are anxious to live at peace with the Turkish people, and I hope they will not allow their foreign policy to interfere with our national needs or prevent a resumption of trade with Russia.
    With regard to our trade with Germany, I hope the Government will remember that probably the most profitable form of reparations would be one calculated to bring about a recovery of national trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea said that the effect of reparations had been greatly exaggerated, but that is not the opinion of the leaders of trade and commerce in this country who generally scout and condemn them. In Leicester the other day at the quarterly meeting of the Chambers of Commerce of this country a resolution was unanimously passed calling for a revision of the Peace Treaties, and the Chairman of the Federation of British Industries said that the essential antecedent to the stabilisation of the exchange is the reconstruction and readjustment of our reparation claims. I believe there is a general feeling and a longing in this country to get rid of the millstone of reparations which the late Government has fastened round the trade of this country.
    I know that in these matters we have to act in co-operation with France, and I am also aware that the French Govern-

    1029
    ment have their difficulties. France has many devastated areas, and they must have some money from the Germans to restore them. Our Government might say to the French Government that they might take the reparations if they would only co-operate with us in securing the peaceful development of Europe. I feel that what is needed for the restoration of the trade of this country is an active, vigorous and courageous policy of peace. We want peace abroad and at home. We want the present Government to have courage to do what the late Government lamentably failed to do—that is, to adopt a vigorous lead in the policy of peace and to have a constructive and consistent policy of their own. At home there is a general desire for peace in industry and also a desire for peace and co-operation. I hope the Government will have sufficient imagination and sympathy to take advantage of that feeling and bring employers and workers together in an attempt to restore industry and give to the workers what they desire, namely, greater security of employment and greater security in times of sickness. If the Government only show that courage and imagination, and if they can give us peace abroad and peace at home, then they can snap their fingers at the Opposition, because they will have the whole nation behind them.
    Mr. TURNER: We have been told that there is no monopoly of sympathy for the unemployed on this side of the House. I quite agree that sympathy can be world-wide, and it can be the part and lot of all classes of people. There is, however, this fact to be borne in mind, that the burden of suffering from unemployment is borne by the people we represent on this side of the House. Hon. Members have defended very strongly what has been termed private enterprise. I would like to ask hon. Members if they can prove that private enterprise has been a success, judged solely from the standpoint of the working people of this country. If it has been a success, why have we 1,500,0000 people unemployed? Why have we 2,000,000 more persons only partly employed? If it is a success, why are there millions of people below the poverty line as laid down by Rowntree many years ago?
    Captain BRASS: It is on account of the War.
    Mr. TURNER: Hon. Members say it is because of the War, but I will go back to the time before the War. In the lot of my life I have seen four successive periods of trade depression when there has been a vast number of people unemployed. I remember visiting this city in 1886 and 1887, when the unemployed demonstrations of those periods were vast, and trouble occurred because the then Government did not take sufficient account of the claims of the unemployed. I have seen since 1874 trade depressions in 1880 and 1890, and I have seen their disastrous results in the industries concerned. If private enterprise has been a success, it seems to me that it has been successful for a certain section of society, while it has been a failure for millions of other people in our kingdom. The present distress is greater than ever before in the history of man. That may be largely due to our rulers having blundered and muddled through in the past few years, with the result that our former customers among the nations of the world have been alienated and our chance of home trade cast on one side. What troubles me day after day is the record that I see in the newspapers. In a Yorkshire newspaper this morning there is a report from my own town of a neighbour of mine who has been unemployed for a considerable time. He ended his own life yesterday, because of unemployment. Is that a success of private enterprise? In the same Yorkshire papers, a fortnight ago, there was a report of an inquest held on a person who had died from starvation. These are two records from the towns of Dewsbury and Batley during the past two weeks. The economic situation was wrong in 1874; it was wrong in the 'eighties, when I came to the Metropolis to see the unemployed demonstrations — in November, 1886, and — in February, 1887. It was wrong in the 'nineties, when trade was bad and depressed in my own textile industry. It is bound, therefore, to be the same to-day, when the number of unemployed is over 1,500,000. In the towns from which I come—Dewsbury, Batley, Morley and Ossett—known as the heavy woollen district—there is an increase this month of hundreds and hundreds of unemployed as against the months of September and October. The Minister of Labour should take particular note of one fact. During

    1031
    the past six months the increase of unemployment in the four towns I have mentioned has been tremendous.
    In the schemes put forward by the Minister of Labour, no proposals are contained for providing employment for persons in the textile trade, or for the women textile workers in the heavy woollen districts. So far as they go, the schemes suggested will do very little, because the total number of workers who will be absorbed by them will still leave 1,000,000 persons untouched. Therefore, while the schemes are good in so far as they go, and we welcome them, they do not touch the whole of the subject and millions of people who will be left. unconsidered. There, are certain things which annoy and irritate those who are destitute owing to unemployment. They can see the splendour and riotous ways of the wealthier classes amidst their poverty. I appeal to those who have an abundance of the good things of this life—I do not appeal for charity—but for restraint from extravagant display and waste. I appeal to them to set a really good example to our people, as our people have set a good example to them in this direction. It is a marvel to me how patient and kind our working-people are, how they restrain themselves and modify their anger in times of great difficulty and depression. I want to maintain that kind of character and of restraint in England. It is in danger of being submerged through the oppression and depression from which these people are now suffering.
    This is not like the former times of trade depression, which came in gusts, lasted a few months, and then passed by. There are people in the textile trade now —I do not mean in Bradford, Hudders-field and Colne Valley—but in Batley, Morley and Ossett, who have had no chance of employment during the last two or three years. The trade depression started in July of 1920. It became a little fiercer towards the end of the year; mills which stopped in Morley, in August, 1920, have not had a single order since then. Mills which went on short time in July, 1920, have been on half time, or less than half time, ever since. The savings of the working people have gone by the board. Many a working man has come to me and said, "Ben, I am nearly heart-broken. I have saved my £60 or £80. I bought
    1032
    a bit more furniture, and all my savings have gone." Such a man as that becomes despairing and depressed, and ends his life in the way reported in the Yorkshire paper this morning. I want, if I possibly can, to save these people by some scheme for restoring trade by bringing about friendly relations with our former trade customers throughout the world. In Ossett and Morley we had customers in the Far East, the Near East, the Middle East and in various parts of the United Kingdom, but they are now lost. We have destroyed our friendship with some of them abroad, and I want to restore it. In the United Kingdom we have destroyed the possibility of the employers making good their stock. They could do that in the told days, but it is impossible to do it now because the Government has wasted thousands and millions of pounds. We have created a National Debt which is a crime against good finance, and the interest charge is a deadly burden on trade and commerce. Until that is lifted there is not much chance of trade being revived either abroad or at home.
    I want to deal with the point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond). He spoke about housing. Why, he is the arch villian—I do not mean that in the wrong way—on the question of housing. I happen to be the chairman of the Health Committee of the West Riding of Yorkshire. We have been trying to improve the housing position in the West Biding. We are 45,000 houses short to-day of meeting what are only the moderate and reasonable requirements of the people. In Castleford there are 701 houses in which two or more families live. In my own town, people cannot get married because there are not houses in which to go, and therefore the possibility of a natural increase of life is destroyed. At Sowerby Bridge the authorities wanted to build more houses, but the Ministry of Health stopped them doing so. The records of the Health Committee show that 737 houses were unfit for human habitation and 700 houses needed reconstruction and renovation. Certain schemes were passed and then the consent of the Minister of Health was withheld, and hundreds of families in the West Riding of Yorkshire had to live two or more in a house. An ex-service man wrote to me from a place called Grafton,

    1033
    three miles from Wakefield, on the question. He stated that he lived in one room up and one down. He had a wife and three children. He was a consumptive man in a sanatorium at Middleton. He said, "I do not want to go home, because I think I shall give my children consumption." This man loved his wife, his children, and life. Yet we cannot find him a house. Neither the Rural Council of Wakefield nor the City Council can find this man a house, and the right hon. Member for West Swansea was the prime person responsible for preventing the West Riding of Yorkshire and other places from building inhabitable houses. I know it is not right to say some things in this House, but I was staggered to find in Ossett a woman, 82 years of age, who had been turned out of her home, and who was only able to get sleeping accommodation in the corner of a rag warehouse through the kindness of the owner. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea is partly responsible for that, because in that town they wanted to build more houses, and were denied the right to do so by the Ministry of Health. The Medical Officer of Health for the West Riding of Yorkshire says we are 45,000 houses short in that district. Thus, at any rate, there is a good opportunity for reconstruction and to help the building trade to recover its position, at the same time giving the people nicer houses to live in. The better the houses they live in and the more food you can provide them with, the better it is for the good of the Empire. This, however, wants goodwill and a good heart on the part of everyone. It requires a good understanding of the economic situation. I see no possibility of private enterprise succeeding in restoring and re-creating civilisation. Financial bankruptcy faces us. You deny to us the right of a capital levy, yet you accepted the principle of the capital levy when Sir William Harcourt brought in his Death Duties. That was really a capital levy, but you had to die before paying it. Why reserve your good deeds till you are dead? Why not do them while you are living? Why not save the country? If you agree to this capital levy you will still have an abundance to live upon, and at the same time you will reduce the National Debt, you will reduce the interest charges upon it, and you will
    1034
    reduce your own Income Tax. You will be able to abolish your food taxes, you will have peace in your homes and in your heart, and you will do a great deal to restore civilisation and human progress.
    Mr. L. THOMPSON: I crave the indulgence of this House while I address it for the first time. I want to give my reasons for speaking this evening. I and my colleagues represent one of the greatest industrial constituencies in the country—one of the bright spots in Durham.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Where there is more poverty than in any other town in England.
    Mr. THOMPSON: Sunderland is one of the constituencies that suffers from an unparalleled amount of unemployment, yet the people of that town have thought fit to return two Members to the Conservative side of this House. I think I have a right to address the House on this question and to claim that I take an impartial view of it. It has struck me more particularly in listening to the speeches from both sides that there has been too great a tendency towards partizanship— to view the matter from a partizan standpoint. I think the views which have, been stated by hon. Members opposite have been too limited in character. They have spoken merely from their own standpoint. It will also be acknowledged, I believe, on my own side of the House that we speak here with a not too intimate knowledge of the needs of the community. It has been my fortune to spend one-half of my life at work in the shipyards, and I have, therefore, a pretty intimate acquaintance with the conditions there. I know what it is to be at work at six o'clock in the morning. I know the needs of the workers in the shipbuilding industry. During the last half of my life I have been brought into commercial relationships of an equally intimate character, with the result that my views have been balanced.
    Whatever may be said from the other side of the House the fact remains that there is an intimate relationship between capital and labour—whether we accept it on the basis of private enterprise or from the point of view of national control. The two are so indissolubly joined that you cannot part them. It is necessary there

    1035
    should be a relationship between capital and labour, however we view the system on which it is based. After listening to the speeches of hon. Members opposite I have been forced to the conclusion that their attitude of approach is largely political. The attitude of the Labour party for a series of years on this great question of unemployment has been largely political, and in support of that I need only refer to the debates which have taken place at their various con ferences from 1917 onwards. I would also recommend hon. Members to study the Debates which took place in this House in October last year. It must be clear to any impartial mind that practically the whole of their arguments are political in their bearing, and have never touched the centre of the problem of unemployment. The essence of these Debates, moreover, reveals that the party is prepared to touch simply the fringe of the question of unemployment. It has been enunciated, even in the Debate to-day, that all we can do at present is to meet the necessities of time by introducing various schemes that would relieve unemployment. I agree entirely with that, but I would urge the Government, with all emphasis, that they should give, not merely adequate, but generous consideration to the immediate needs and to the question of the amelioration of the causes of unemployment.
    I believe that we have not yet recognised the full necessities of the case. One right hon. Member touched the kernel of the case when he spoke of the population of this great country. We must never forget that within the last century we have quadrupled our population, and it becomes a question how far we can sustain it. That is a question which is involved in this large question of unemployment. At present England and Wales is probably the most densely populated area in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think it is quite possible that, with the exception, perhaps, of Belgium, this is the most densely populated country in the world. We are carrying 649 people to the square mile, and we cannot indefinitely go on at that rate. What is needed is not simply the amelioration of the present necessities of unemployment, but a review of the whole position. We cannot leave out the question of the increase of population. That leads me to point out that we must
    1036
    have, not only the remedies that have been suggested, but remedies which are adequate and permanent. I suggest that the first thing needed is a return of confidence—not only national and international confidence, but a mutual confidence and understanding between Capital and Labour. Without passing or attempting to pass any recriminations on either side, I think the time has come when we should have a perfect understanding in our relationships. There is nothing so elusive as capital, and it depends largely upon stability and confidence.
    With other hon. Members on this side of the House, I believe that one of the great methods of curing unemployment is the opening out of the resources of our great Empire. I remember, something like 40 years ago, hearing a speech by the late Joseph Chamberlain in a town near to my native town, when he expressed his great desire for and great belief in the Imperialistic idea. I suggest that this is one of the means whereby we might solve permanently this question of unemployment. There are immense possibilities over the seas. The trade of our Colonies has been called in question during this Debate, but the fact remains that our Colonies are our best customers. Whatever may be said of the possibilities of the European markets, which may be great, our returns for exports during 1921 show that, while the Colonies took more than one-third of our exports, the countries that have been mentioned in the Debate to-night were only responsible for taking one-twentieth of our exports. We find, therefore, that over the seas there are vast possibilities, not only for re-population, but for the extension of our trade.
    In the second place, the workers' primary need is greater security—security of life. During my election one of my best workers—a lady—came to me, and said, "My husband gave me yesterday sufficient money to buy a coat. He has come in to-night to say that he has finished his job, and possibly will be out of employment Instead of spending that money on a coat," she said, "I must retain it for some other purpose in maintaining my home." The tragedy of it is that, while men who are in such a position as I am have the security that, if we do not make quite the same profit at one time as at another, we certainly make a living,

    1037
    the ordinary worker has not that security. I believe it is the supreme test of statesmanship on the part of any Government to effect such security for the worker. If we can give a permanent or nearly permanent form of employment, we have in our insurance scheme that possibility of security. We have a security that covers, to a certain extent, health; we have insurance against accident, and we have insurance against unemployment. It may be inadequate, but there is this to be said in its favour, that there are those who have received it as an actual boon during this time of trade depression. Whatever may be said against the dole, it has saved plenty of homes from disaster. We have also our form of old age pensions, and I, for one, hope to see the day when every disability may be removed from the old age pension, so that complete security may be given to the worker that he may live the life he has chosen free from any insecurity. I believe that the Labour party would go a step further, and offer the security of State aid and State control, and, if you like, State slavery. I would, however, remind hon. Members opposite that it was not industrialism that caused men to combine. Long before we knew industrialism as it is, when men were in crafts and guilds, they sought for deliverance. I would also remind hon. Members that the first charter of liberty that ever came to the worker came from a Conservative Government in 1825. The charter which has made it possible for this House to be composed as it is to-night was granted in 1875 by the great Disraeli. It has made it possible for every workman to be an equal participant in an equal contract. It it because of that freedom, and because we believe in it, that we here advocate the schemes that we do, believing that it is preferable that people should preserve their liberty than that they should be degraded under State control.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. SNELL: In rising to address the House for the first time, my mind goes back to a night in the '80's when, after many hours of weary waiting, a very happy boy from the Strangers' Gallery had the great privilege of hearing Mr. Gladstone introduce the Franchise Bill from that Box. On that occasion the House of Commons put a spell upon me, which has not only endured, but has increased with the years. I have always felt that if a man brings
    1038
    to its service his best gifts and leaves behind him everything that is selfish and uncharitable there is no place on this earth where a man may render better service to mankind. It is with some humility, therefore, in the presence of such thoughts that I ask for the kind indulgence of the House on this occasion. This Debate in relation to unemployment seems to me to have revealed one thing in chief, that everyone is concerned to say what cannot be done. Very few Members have made constructive suggestions. On this side we are admonished because we put forward proposals. Those proposals are thought to be wrong, but no contrary proposals are put in their place. I cannot help feeling that, after all, the chief difference between our Friends on the other side of the House and ourselves is a difference of faith in man's endeavour to find a way out of this problem. Unemployment is always with us in an acute or a chronic form, and we shall have to apply to it a new method and a new faith before we can cure it. Generations of statesmen have approached it and have retired baffled before this very complex and very difficult problem, and "the poor ye have always with you" seems to have become an article of settled political conviction. I think that is the chief difference between hon. Members on the other side of the House and the Labour party. We feel that greater problems than this have yielded to research. There is not in any scientific laboratory any man working in medical or physical research who is not perfectly buoyant with hope that some time a way out of his problem, will be found. If men in their laboratories make these experiments and fail in them, they try and try again, and yet Governments lose faith. I want to know why all the pessimism in our nature is reserved for these social relations touching men's lives and the welfare of our fellow citizens. If science can find the way to get a cure for cancer or tuberculosis, the united goodwill of this House can find a way to cure unemployment. I therefore appeal to hon. Members not to ignore it and not to do little things. In this matter to do nothing is in reality to do a good deal, and to do little is practically to do nothing. It is after all to admit that the problem is insoluble. It is to stand by while we drift to the abyss.

    1039
    It is also, I think, to add to the deepening despair of many unhappy men. I appeal, therefore, to the House that we should approach it in a new faith and in a new way, for it is not only a question of hunger and despair or the impairment of the national efficiency; it has even worse results. It produces in the individual a paralysis of his individual moral nature— his spiritual nature—cutting at the very root of the most precious thing in him, his manhood, with a consequently increasing inability to stand up to and to overcome misfortune.
    I have addressed these few words on the general problem, but my special reason for asking the House to listen to me is to put before it a problem regarding which the Government has a very special responsibility. I desire to introduce to the House this problem of unemployment as confined to a particular locality in which the Government is not only the chief, but practically the only employer—the problem of the district of Woolwich, which is a Government town. There we have an area in which the Government is the chief employer. During the War it congregated into that borough 100,000 employés. There were 70,000 employés in the ordnance factories alone—men of the highest skill. They were brought from the ends of our country. They were the pick of our engineering skill. They worked enthusiastically for the national cause. They worked hard and gave everything they had. These men were as vital a portion of the defence of our land as if they had been in the trenches or on the ships in the North Sea. They worked seven days a week, they agreed to dilution, they agreed to teach the secrets of their business and the mysteries of their machinery to the agents of firms sent there to learn the work; they gave everything that could be given in the nation's need in the hour of very great emergency. Yet, when the War was over, the only reward they got was to see Government orders sent to private firms while they were walking the streets in starvation and in despair. The munitions crisis at the beginning of the War arose from two things; first, because of the Haldane minimum of 8,000 men, and, secondly, because the contractors, who were subsidised at the expense of the Government's own establishment,
    1040
    failed in their obligations to the Government and to the nation.
    The Haldane minimum of 8,000 men was fixed despite the urgent advice of the responsible official (Sir Frederick Donaldson), Chief of the Ordnance Department, because it did not provide a sufficient nucleus for the extension necessary in time of immediate emergency. Because the Arsenal was reduced in that way, it cost, when the War came, hundreds of millions of pounds and thousands of precious lives that ought never to have been lost. It is not only that particular point that I desire to stress, but the great loss there is to the nation that these wonderfully skilled men are being held up in the present way. That is the greatest tragedy of all; this slow decline in quality. It is as if you took the marvellous fingers of Paderewski and Kreisler from their instruments for a year or so and then asked them to perform in a sudden emergency.
    What we ask is not that the nation should make superfluous armaments, but that whilst there are Government orders it is a matter of mere business and1 sanity that the Government's own establishments should be kept at work before orders are diverted to private firms. If there is no war material at all required, the machinery which belongs to the nation and for which the nation has to pay should be used for the development and production of goods for civic life. Let me illustrate what is happening in another land. On the day of the Armistice Krupps' works at Essen were adapted to produce other goods, and a very short time ago 18,000 more men were being employed at Krupps in the production of goods for national purposes than were employed at Krupps when the War broke out in the production of armaments. That means that in Germany the German engineers are being kept efficient and that their skill is being maintained by constant work; our men, with all their exquisite skill, the picked men of our country, are being cast as rubbish to the void, and nobody cares anything about them. I hope the House will pardon me for appearing to speak with passion on these matters. Perhaps I shall get more accustomed to its methods a little later.
    I desire to mention the present position of the borough of Woolwich. Think what it must mean to have this dislocation of

    1041
    more than 90,000 employés thrown out of work in a period of four years. More than 10,000 men to-day are walking the Streets in that town, without employment and in very great despair, while hundreds of acres of factories and machinery which have cost the nation millions of pounds to build are lying idle. The relief work which has been started with the assistance of the local authorities under the unemployment schemes has not absorbed more than 2,000 unemployed. Of the arterial roads that were started, two have not been completed because of lack of funds. Schemes for widening the roads have been submitted to the Ministry of Transport, but not yet sanctioned. If these could be sanctioned without delay they would provide work for 1,100 men during the next six months, and £100,000 in wages. There are housing schemes to be completed and many other things that could be done. I put it, therefore, to the Government, that it has a very special responsibility in regard to this situation which it has created.
    With regard to the general principle, I suggest that it is good business for the nation to use its own workshops. The Government will find during the coming months that the most important controversy which will have to be faced in this House is what industries should be regarded as national services and what may safely be left to private enterprise. On one point we on these benches feel that there can be no sort of division. So long as weapons of destruction or of national defence are needed they should be produced by the nation itself. It is dangerous and foolish to leave them to be produced by syndicates and armament rings which, in secret, exercise a very pernicious influence upon Governments and Legislatures. If such manufactures are considered a necessary part of national defence, then they are suitable for national service and not for private profit making. We therefore feel that in asking the Government to see that its own establishments are properly maintained before it diverts orders to private firms, we are asking it to do what is not only right to the nation, because of the money invested in its national factories, but what it is right to do in the interests of peace as a whole. There is the question of alternative work.
    1042
    Woolwich feels that under equal conditions it can compete in price with other firms, and that it can excel any other firm in the matter of quality; but it is subject at the present time to very unfair overhead charges. We feel that it is not right on extended and unused establishments to charge these overhead charges to production. We say that they should be charged to a special fund. That was agreed upon between Lord Haldane and the late Mr. Crooks before the War began.
    Summing up, I say, firstly, that the Government has a special responsibility for those localities where it is the only employer, and it is its business to deal with the situation which it has created. Secondly, it ought not to exercise an unfair discrimination against its own establishments in favour of any armament ring that may exist. Thirdly, it is mere national sanity to keep its own plant employed, before it sends orders in other directions. Fourthly, it should follow the example which has been adopted by Krupps and the great armament centres, and adapt its machinery and establishments for the production of goods for peaceful purposes as well as for war purposes. Lastly, it should be generous, in the circumstances, in the matter of grants to a very distressed locality for which it is responsible. I have tried to put this rather difficult matter before the House without exaggeration and, I hope, without offence, but the difficulties are very great. I do ask that the Government should pay special attention to it, and give to Woolwich the best consideration that it can.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: Before addressing to the House a few words on the matter which we are now discussing, I feel that I shall be expressing the feeling of the House if I extend to the hon. Member who has just spoken our congratulations upon his very acceptable speech, delivered in terms which show that he appreciates the sense of the House and the responsibilities attaching to a Member of this Assembly. The hon. Member said that the chief difference between the Labour party and hon. Members who sit on this side of the House is that the Members of the Labour party approach the problem of unemployment with a new hope and a new faith, and that we on this side approach it without any hope and without any faith. I appreciate the temperate

    1043
    spirit and careful study which apparently the hon. Member gave to his speech, but I would suggest for his consideration, and I am quite sure that it will receive his earnest consideration, that perhaps he has misinterpreted that difference, and that, indeed, that difference is due to the fact that many hon. Members on this side of the House have acquired to the full exactly the same experience that those hon. Members who are on the other side of the House have acquired in the workshops. We understand and feel deeply in common with the workmen in the workshops, but here is the difficulty. We on this side are oppressed by something which does not oppress hon. Members on the opposite side. We are oppressed by a deep sense of responsibility. Having acquired all the experience which we believe they possess, we have in addition the responsibility to-day of providing employment.
    It is that which makes us have regard to the real solution of this problem, and which tells us to approach it very gingerly. [Laughter.] An hon. Member opposite laughs. Does he deny our earnestness, and that our desire to solve this problem is equal to his own? Does he challenge our sincerity? I think not. But remember if a mistake is made two parties suffer, the employer and the workman. The employer can afford to suffer. He can afford to go down in rags and poverty. The employing class in numbers is small. We can go down and suffer, we are small in number. Do you think we are concerned for our own suffering, our own poverty? Is it not the great mass in this country whom we stand here to protect? Do you think we have descended to the level that we stand here as men in this great tribunal of the people, defending our personal petty interests? [HON MEMBERS: "Not petty!"] No, they are not petty, they are those interests which are concerned with the responsibility of keeping the great mass of people in this country employed and not merely making a profession of trading on the poverty of the people. I take my stand on that ground and throw down a challenge to hon. Members opposite, and hope that this great Government with all the power which it possesses, by right of the declaration of the people of this country, will also challenge directly the assumption of hon.
    1044
    Members on the benches opposite. Where do we stand? I welcome and never shrink from, a challenge from any party in this House. I had the honour on two occasions to contest an election in one of the worst, or what hon. Members opposite would consider one of the best, socialist seats, and I never hesitated to say there what I say here, and what it is right to have said—let us be prepared to test our principles by facts and not by phrases.
    To come to the solution of this problem of unemployment. It is a problem which, obviously, divides itself distinctly into two sections. One is the ameliorative measures which are to be put into force with a view to alleviating distress at the moment, and the second and the permanent cure is how are we to get trade and commerce in order to provide the necessary volume of employment for the permanent prosperity and contentment of our people. The former may be the sedative to preserve the patient in a state of tranquillity, but the latter is the nourishment to re-invigorate the body politic. The truth of this matter rests somewhere. Constant denunciation of the evi1 is not a cure. Let us take hon. Members' own opinion, the kind of opinion represented by Socialists of this country. We have listened to-night to a long speech by an hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Hastings). What is his cure? He said that the Labour party had at least put forward a policy which would solve this problem. But he said not one word to commend that policy to us, not one word to substantiate that policy as a sound one for the country. What was his cure? The appointment of a Commission or Committee to investigate the question of a capital levy. I think that by that one reference to the speech of the hon. and learned Member I sum up the case which has been made by hon. Members opposite: the capital levy and State control summarise their opinion. Whatever our opinion might be of this remedy, obviously I cannot explore or debate the subject to-night. I am absolutely opposed to such a solution, but, even for the purpose of argument supposing that such a solution was a good one, does the hon. and learned Member suggest that it could be put into effect in time to alleviate the present serious unemployment? I am sure that not for a moment does he suggest that such a thing could be done.

    1045
    What is the other remedy which is suggested? Work or maintenance. Surely, that is a platitude. If hon. Members opposite would put before us some policy to give effect to it, maintenance by work, I am sure that it would have the support of everyone on the Government Benches. How are we to achieve maintenance by work? The present policy is obviously only a palliative. I think the Government is generally taking the right step to give effect to employment, in a temporary sense, to bridge over the next few months. I warn hon. Members not to expect too much. [HON. MEMBERS: "HON, hear!"] I am glad to know they do not expect too much, because if they do they will be sadly disappointed, and I am sure what I am saying will be supported on the Treasury Bench. Go on with temporary relief; get as much ameliorative work out of it as you can, but do not regard that as a solution of the unemployment problem. I said earlier—and my remark caused a certain amount of mirth—that the truth lies somewhere. I mean to give my understanding of where the truth lies. It lies in this fact: That the average level of values throughout the world to-day may be fairly assessed at round about 50 per cent, above pre-War level, and the workers of this country, if they are going to get our workshops full, must be prepared to see that they are subject to a level of wages round about 50 per cent, above pre-War level. I know perfectly well I am not talking in any popular strain. If I wanted to be popular, I should not talk in this way. What have we got now? We find that some of the great trade unions are recognising that fact and are bringing their wages down to-day even below the level of 50 per cent, above the pre-War rate. Some of the great trade unions have done so, but many others have not, and it is a significant, fact that the trade unions which have brought their wages down below 50 per cent, above pre-War level are those connected with the producing trades. Those which have not brought the wages down in this manner are not the producing trades, but the railway workers, dockers, tramway workers and the intermediate trades which live upon the producing trades. I say with conviction that until you face the fact honestly and squarely, that your
    1046
    railwaymen, dockers, tramway men, men in preserved and protected industries are robbing their fellow workers and preventing the wheels of industry going round, you will never effect a permanent cure of this great problem.
    Mr. POTTS: What brought the miners' wage down?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The miners' wages are too low, if anything. They are certainly not too high. I wish to deal with this matter quite impartially. The miners' wages are no bar to the wheels of industry being started. These intermediate non-producing trades are bleeding their fellow-workmen, and the leaders of these trade unions have a great responsibility placed upon them to see they are at once brought down. Until they come down you will not have the day labourer's wage rectified, and the real index value of goods is the day labourer's wage. Look at the day labourer's wage in London today. The men driving the London County Council tramcars to-day are better paid than skilled engineers working in London engineering workshops. While that remains so you are keeping at a false level the cost of nearly all the commodities we are producing. These facts must be faced. Go on with your palliatives if you will, but I am quite sure if you want in a year or 18 months or two years to get the wheels of industry moving and get employment given to the people, then you must let the trade unions come together, face to face with the employers, and settle these things, not as a matter of political controversy, but as a matter of real, sane effort to get trade going. In that way you will really solve the problem, and in 18 months' time you will really and in fact have a large volume of employment out of all proportion to that provided by the palliative measures. You will have done a great thing for your country, you will have established trade unionism, you will have given the trade unions the right to say, "We understood and appreciated. Make us great trade guilds, let us come in with the employers—employers and employes—great trade guilds overlooking industry." I cannot explore that now, but if you follow on those lines you will have great, dignified trade unions, automatically, naturally growing up, not created by law or State enactment but with the blessing of a charter in-

    1047
    corporating great trade guilds. It is on those lines that you will solve this great problem, and not by cavilling on party, political issues, and trying to make small party points. I commend that to the attention of hon. Members opposite, in conference or otherwise, and I will do whatever I can, giving them my views, to co-operate with them in achieving the great ends we all have at heart.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: We all agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) that we must not expect too much from the Government, and really I want to deal with what is the real challenge of this Amendment to the views expressed in the Gracious Speech. The allusion made to unemployment in that Speech is to ameliorative measures being examined afresh. Amelioration is a blessed word. Students of political literature on the other side will remember, in the novel "Coningsby," that Mr. Disraeli nearly a hundred years ago described a conversation between the two principal Whips in Parliament, Mr. Taper and Mr. Tadpole. Mr. Taper said:
    "' And now for our cry—Ancient Institutions and Modern Improvements.' Ameliorations is the better word,' said Mr. Tadpole, 'Ameliorations—nobody knows exactly what it means.'"
    Well, amelioration is still doing duty a hundred years later. The real difference, I think, between the two sides of the House is this. I do not mean to say that the Government believe only in amelioration—of course, they do not—but the general view on the other side is that we are now suffering from the natural disaster, or, if not natural, at any rate that it is the result of the War, that it is an unavoidable disaster which you can mitigate, but you must wait until things come round. During all these months we have been constantly told that things are getting better and that there are signs of improvement, and we are told so to-day, but the unemployed are still there, still in as large numbers.
    Our attitude, on the other hand, is this. Unemployment, as we see it to-day, is principally the result of policies pursued during the last four years, pursued deliberately, avowed and persisted in by the Coalition, which was supported by most of those who are now the Government, policies which in one sense have
    1048
    been successful, but by their very success have been the ruin of the country as we now see it. First of all, there is foreign policy. It is a foreign policy four years old. In our view, the primary fact in the existing situation is the punitive peace. The policy of the last Parliament was to make Germany pay. Well, Germany has to pay, not as much as was hoped, but the punitive side of making Germany pay has been eminently successful. The German working-men are working while ours are not, but they are starving while they work. They cannot buy even with their high wages. The punitive peace has been successful in other ways. We have got our share of the reparation. We have got our ships; the other Allies have got their coal, but what results? I will not ask the House to take from a Labour Member what the result of getting the quite successful loot of all the German ships was on Great Britain. I will ask the House to listen to what Lord Aberconway said at the launching of the "Franconia" a few weeks ago:
    "Paralysis of the shipping industry is due to the reparation ships."
    And he said they h id better have been sunk at Scapa Flow. Of course, that is so. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon, the late Premier, was absolutely successful in making the Germans pay so far as the ships are concerned. But what is the result on the Wear, Tyne and Clyde? The workers are out of work. Again, take coal. Reparation is exacted from Germany in coal, mostly paid to France. What has been the result on us? For months our export trade in coal has been reduced almost to nothing. It is to a certain extent recovering now, but for months and months the disaster to our coal trade was directly due to the reparation. [HON. MEMBERS: "The coal strike!" and "The lock-out!"] The situation out of which the lock-out arose was directly due to this very cause. But the point I want chiefly to make is this: We succeeded in our punitive policy. We reduced the purchasing power of the great populations in Central Europe almost to nil. The workers there are getting nominally high wages, but they are working for what is in fact about 3d., and in many cases 2d., an hour, and all they can do is just to buy food and nothing else for themselves and their families. I am not saying this for the purpose of asking the House to show any

    1049
    indignation that this should be falling on our late enemies. Far from it. I am only wanting to point out to the House what the result has been on us. We are a great exporting nation. We cannot export to those countries. You cannot trade with paupers, and when it is said, "Oh, cut the cost of production in England, and our trade will come," I say it is not a question of cutting the cost of production 10 or 20 per cent. If you are dealing with paupers, you have got to cut it by 90 or 95 per cent. The truth about the condition of Europe—a condition the direct result of the policy pursued during the last three or four years—is, as one of our prophets said:
    "The poverty of your neighbour by the communism of God becomes in the end your own."
    If hon. Members want to know who said that, it was John Ruskin. What we on this side of the House urge is that this distressing situation cannot be remedied without a retractation and a repudiation on our part of the policy of the Treaty of Versailles. I want to pass rapidly from that to the policy pursued by the late Government, and I think—at any rate, judging from the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—is still the view of those sitting opposite. The argument for the policy pursued has been this: "We must recover our lost markets; we must limit the cost of production at home," which, being interpreted, is: We must lower the wages of our own population. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That has been the policy—which for the last two years has been the policy—proclaimed to-night —proclaimed by all the leading newspapers.
    The Government itself initiated a reduction of wages of the agricultural labourers, and indirectly the Government invited the reduction of the miners' wages which caused the lock-out. There is no doubt about the argument of the business men for the last three years. It has been: "Reduce wages, reduce wages and we will find our markets." They have reduced wages. Have they opened up the markets? The wages of the miners, the engineers, the agricultural labourers, the textile mill hands, and so on, have been reduced. In fact it was a great victory for policy. I have not seen the figures challenged, and they are very probably correct,
    1050
    given by the great trade unions, which show a reduction of £12,000,000 per week in the last 18 months in the wages of the working classes. That is £600,000,000 a year. What are the fruits of that? Is there any reduction of unemployment? Has it had any effect? None! Unemployment remains with us. The magic has not worked. The policy has had its full opportunity! Surely, if the cutting of wages is to do anything £600,000.000 off wages would be a sufficient test of policy. What has happened? Nothing! Surely the reason is—and this, I think, is the difference between ourselves and hon. Gentleman opposite—we believe that the basis of prosperity is the spending power of the millions; that nothing else can be the basis of prosperity, except the spending power of the millions. The House will observe that that underlies the whole of the policy that Labour puts forth. We fight to maintain high wages. You may say, "We do it for political reasons!" Very likely. Trade unions in that sense are the clients of the Labour party. But the reason for this, is not that we are seeking to keep up the individual wage of the individual men, but because we are looking to the collective spending power of the masses. It is the same thing when we ask for the abolition of the food taxes and all the lower ranges of the Income Tax. That is why we insist upon this by a capital levy, of which I am not afraid. I know that in the North of England it is a most popular thing.
    I want to say quite definitely—and it is really the feeling of most of us on this side—that we do not lay the slightest claim to a monopoly of sympathy for the unemployed. I do not think that there is any section of my countrymen who are not alarmed at the present state of things among the unemployed. It is not sympathy that is in question but deeds. At the recent Election great efforts were made against Labour in Newcastle, and it took the form of a series of leaders coming down to Tyne-side to make great speeches. First of all, there was the late Premier. Nobody would accuse him of want of sympathy, because his sympathy is great and broad. Nobody denies that, and with regard to unemployment nobody denies that the right hon. Gentleman realises its bitter effects, because, two years ago, what he prided himself upon most was that his

    1051
    règime was going to bring unemployment to an end, when he said that never again should the gaunt spectre of unemployment stalk rampant through the land. We have in Newcastle 100,000 unemployed, but when the late Prime Minister came to make a speech there, he had nothing to say about the unemployed. Then came the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and, of course, there is no want of sympathy there. The right hon. Gentleman always talks with great precision, and lets you know exactly where he stands. He spoke at Newcastle, and said:
    "There were two acid tests. One was to prevent the repeal by the Lords of the Parliament Act, and the other was the repeal of the Safeguarding of Industries Act."
    It was definite and exact, but the unemployed of Newcastle asked what this was to them. It was hardly going to affect 100,000 unemployed on Tyneside. Then came the Chancellor of the Exchequer— quite the most sympathetic man in the House as those of us who have been long in Parliament know. What had he to say? He had hopes of economy—Departmental economy. Yes, but what is Departmental economy? Here is the nation wanting economy to the tune of hundreds of millions. Departmental economy to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds, or a million or two, does not touch the fringe of this great question.
    What I think the unemployed felt as the difference between the two parties was, perhaps, not even necessarily that we were right, but that the other parties, as shown by their programmes, had nothing to offer; while, at any rate, the Labour party were daring to challenge the iniquity and injustice of the Versailles Treaty, which is the root of all the miseries and economic disaster of Europe. The Labour party dared to say that high wages at all times are the only security for good trade. When the nation is going through a period of bad trade, that is the time, of all others, when wages ought to be kept up and when they ought not to be driven down. The Labour party have dared to say big things, and they dare to mean them. That is the difference between the two sides of the House.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Hastings) said he thought the Labour party were entitled to be heard in this Debate. I have sat here for two or three days, and I think the House generally will agree that the Labour party have had a very good innings. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who else has any right?"] If hon. Members read the Scriptures, they will find that there was a very distinguished man whose name was Job, who was noted for having a great deal of patience. I wonder what Job would have done if he were in the House of Commons and had to hear the speeches of the new Members of the Labour party. They complained that an hon. Member for one of the divisions of Lanark made an election speech, but each of them in succession edified us by repeating his election speeches and trying to prove that the Labour party were in the right and had a monopoly of sympathy with the unemployed. [Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Might I appeal to hon. Members to try and keep quiet for five minutes more.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: A great deal of advice has been given to the Government from both sides of the House, but I have failed to see anything in the nature of constructive policy in the speeches of hon. Members opposite. We have been edified from the other side with a good deal of froth and fury signifying nothing. Let us consider for a moment what are the real causes of unemployment. Since the Armistice was signed, there have been 4,000 strikes in this country. I come from the Basingstoke Division, where 800 men employed by Thorneycrofts were thrown out of work by the moulders' strike. We have had a long succession of those strikes, and I put the unemployment down solely to the misleading of the leaders of the Labour party. Do not forget the long duration of what you call the coal lock-out, but what your leaders when they are not thinking call a strike. One hon. Member this evening has reminded the House that owing to the long duration of the coal strike the demand for coal has been reduced by from 22 to 25 million tons a year because of the conversion of steamships into oil-driven ships. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh at the idea, but if they will think

    1053
    the matter over carefully they will realise the serious import of it. The hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) gave us a very fine display of oratory, but I do suggest that when he claimed that the smaller the trade the higher the wage should be, he could not have, seriously meant it. Is it not per-perfectly clear that, when trade is dull, we are bound to try to make both ends meet, and no man can afford to pay 30s. for producing an article which can only be sold for £1. Reference has been made to the agricultural slump. I am glad of it, for I feel that the whole slump in agriculture to-day is due to the fact that you who live in great industrial centres do not realise the importance of agriculture. You want to thoroughly understand that agriculture is the greatest and most important of all our industries. You, however, are trying to get cheap food at the expense of the agricultural labourer. I contend that the skilled worker in agriculture is as much entitled to get good wages as the skilled worker in other industries.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

    ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS, 1882 TO 1922.
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Milnrow, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 23rd day of November, 1922, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Ogmore and Garw, in the county of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 23rd day of November, 1922, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and
    1054
    confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the city of Chichester and parts of the rural districts of Westhampnett and Westbourne, in the administrative county of West Sussex, which was presented on the 23rd day of November, 1922, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts. 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Oswald-twistle, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 23rd day of November, 1922, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Havant and Warblington and the rural district of Havant, in the county of Southampton, which was presented on the 23rd day of November, 1922, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending the Scarborough Corporation Electric Lighting Order, 1891, which was presented on the 23rd day of November, 1922, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Old Fletton and Whittlesey, the rural district of Whittlesey, and parts of the rural districts of Norman Cross, Peterborough, and Thorney, and for the amendment of the Peterborough Electric Lighting Order, 1894, which was presented on the 23rd day of November. 1922, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Ashford and Stanwell, in the rural district of Staines, in the county of Middlesex, the parish of Wyrardisbury, otherwise Wraysbury, in the rural district of Eton, in the county of Buckingham, and the parish of Thorpe, in the rural district of Chertsey, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 23rd day of November, 1922, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Ellesmere Port and Whitby and the parishes of Ince, Elton, Hapsford, Dunham-on-the-Hill. Bridge Trafford, Wimbold's Trafford, Thornton-le-Moors, Stoke, and Little Stanley, in the rural district of Chester, all in the county of Chester, which was presented on the 23rd day of November, 1922, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Ashley."]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Colonel Gibbs.]

    MARCONI COMPANY (MR. KELLAWAY).
    Captain W. BENN: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General for being present when I said that I wished to ask a question of him. It is with reference to the announcement which appears in the newspaper to-day that Mr. Kellaway has become a director of the Marconi Company. I do not propose to raise the general question which is here involved. It is a very important question of public policy, as I think, that Ministers or others connected with Government Departments—
    Mr. A. SHORT: Am I not entitled to take precedence over the hon. and gallant Gentleman, seeing that I gave notice?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If it were a question involving debate, I should give the hon. Member precedence; but I took this to be a question asked merely for information, and I do not think it will take more than a minute or so.
    Captain BENN: I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. The general question of public officials resigning their appointments and taking up appointments with business firms with whom they had official connection is, I think, a very important one, and I think the practice is objectionable. I observe in to-night's "Star" newspaper that at the last meeting of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. Mr. Marconi stated that there were claims outstanding, and that conversations of a very encouraging nature had taken place at an interview with Mr. Kellaway, and he had no doubt this was a man of action and progress— that is quite obvious—and he therefore
    1056
    thought "a little more patience on our part may be well rewarded." What I wish to ask the Postmaster-General, who has, of course, no personal knowledge of the intentions of his predecessor, is this. In reference to the broadcasting arrangement, in which Mr. Marconi is very much interested, supposing there are decisions of Mr. Kellaway's which have yet to be implemented by the Post Office, will he undertake to say those decisions will be most carefully revised by himself in a way which will re-assure the public mind as to their being in the public interest?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving me notice, which only reached me a quarter of an hour ago, that he intended to raise this question. I have not had the advantage of seeing the "Star" newspaper, and I was unaware until I had his communication that Mr. Kellaway had become a director of the Marconi Company. As to the engagements which Mr. Kellaway may have made with the Marconi Company in his capacity of Postmaster-General, I really do not know what they are. I have only been a comparatively short time in my present position, and am not acquainted with the details of all the negotiations which have taken place in the past. I think my hon. and gallant Friend is probably unduly disturbed. The reputation of my predecessor is such that I think the House may fairly be satisfied that nothing he would do would be dishonourable or prejudicial to the interests of the country. As to examining the contracts or promises which may have been made, that I shall have to do in any case. I think my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that in examining those contracts I shall endeavour to see that the interests of the country are put above everything else.

    PENSIONS
    Mr. SHORT: In the course of the afternoon I put questions to the Minister of Pensions in connection with two applications for disability pensions. There are two principles involved in the consideration of these cases. First of all, the applicant has become the victim of a disease following upon service in the Army, which disease has not as a rule made its appearance in the man's system prior to

    1057
    discharge; and secondly, the applicant, having been medically examined by the Ministry's medical officers, such officers reported that the disease was caused or aggravated or was attributable to war service; and then the Ministry of Pensions steps in itself and says, "We are not willing or prepared to accept the opinion of our own medical officers," opposes the application before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, to the detriment and loss of pension on the part of the applicant. These two cases upon which I founded my question are typical of many in the country. There is wide-spread dissatisfaction in regard to what I think is the callous brutality of the Ministry in connection with these cases. These ex-service men to whom I have referred are the victims of the dread white scourge of tuberculosis. They were taken into the Army as fit for service. For some years, I have no doubt, they spent their lives in the water-logged trenches of France, among the snow-capped mountains! of Italy or the and deserts of the Far East. The conditions were so trying that, apart from the ordinary incidences of war, their physical capacities and their physical powers have been impaired. Their powers of resistance to disease have been impaired and in many cases totally destroyed. After some period has elapsed they fall victims to tuberculosis and other diseases equally serious. They make application for pensions and are examined— this is the gravamen of my charge, the whole point of my charge—by the medical officers of the Ministry. In both cases the medical officers report that what they are suffering from is attributable to War service. In one case it is 100 per cent. Then the Ministry says: "We cannot accept the opinion of our own medical officers." I want to know, the House will want to know, and the country will want to know, who it is that overrides the opinion of medical men and medical boards when, as in these cases, it is in favour of the men. What lay opinion is it that takes upon itself the authority to override this opinion? If it is not lay opinion—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions shakes his head—is it some medical expert or medical man who have not seen the applicant, who are not conversant with the case, except the incidents placed
    1058
    upon the paper? Is it these experts who override the opinion of medical men and medical boards who have reported in favour of these applicants? I am told in one case that as the decision is final it cannot be reconsidered, and as a form of consolation, which I regard as an insult to the applicant and to myself, I am reminded that the applicant is in receipt of a disability pension of 60 per cent, because, forsooth, he has lost his leg. As if there is any virtue in that! He is entitled to that pension by statutory authority because his left leg was amputated. These applications have been turned down. In one case, at the very moment when the application was rejected by the appeal tribunal, the applicant was lying in a sanatorium within my own constituency, the victim of this dread scourge.
    The time has come when the mountain of sympathy which is talked of in this House should be made a tangible feature in these cases. We cannot expect that men can be taken to the waterlogged trenches, fighting and living for months and years under the most serious and terrible conditions, and return to civil life without having their physical powers and capacities in some measure impaired. If we admit, as the medical men have admitted, that these diseases are attributable to War service, then we claim generous treatment for these suffering men. Put an end to the universal complaints in the country in connection with these cases. Let the country realise fully its obligations in tangible acts for the services of these men. Let us see if we can do what is just to those who have made the greatest sacrifices to save this country from the enemy. The policy—whether it be economy, or call it what you will—which is now being pursued not merely in these cases, but in many other cases, by the Ministry of Pensions, has not the wholehearted support of the people of this country, and the Ministry should realise more completely its responsibility in these matters.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Pensions to a case which, he said in answer to a question by me, was under investigation. It is the case of a woman who is in receipt of a pension for the death of her son. Her husband happens to be unemployed just now. This woman has taken a tem-

    1059
    porary situation to augment the income of the home, which is composed entirely of her pension and her temporary earnings. An investigator, sent no doubt by the Ministry of Pensions, called on this woman and found that she was in receipt of a wage from the temporary situation. He informed the woman that she might be summoned for defrauding the Ministry by not notifying the Ministry that she is in receipt of more money now than when she received the pension. Yet when we ask the Ministry to increase the rate of pensions in certain cases on the ground of increased necessity the Ministry tells us that the increased necessity has arisen only through temporary reasons, such as the unemployment of someone in the family, and he cannot give any consideration to it, unless a permanent need is established and then it will be considered. Here we have the case of a person who is temporarily embarrassed. The wages earned by her bread winner are wiped out and she takes a temporary situation. She is earning nothing like the money that was coming into the house when the pension was granted, and yet the Ministry of Pensions contend that she is defrauding the Ministry.
    There is another case in which a woman was sentenced, and I asked if nothing could be done to wipe out the sentence. The woman in question was in the same position as the woman whom I have already mentioned. A need pension was granted to her, but it was not sufficient owing to unemployment, and she got temporary work. The Minister then sent down an investigator. The woman was summoned to the Court. She did not see a lawyer; she got advice from no one. But a detective who visited her advised her to plead guilty, not to the total sum in question, which was only £3, but to a lesser sum, something like £2. The sheriff put the question: "Is she guilty or not guilty?" The woman, on the advice of the detective, pleaded guilty to the lesser sum, and the sheriff's sentence was: "£5 or 14 days, and 14 days to pay the money." That woman came to me after the sentence. I gave her a letter to hand to any detective who called to see her, showing that I was raising the case in this House. I have raised the case here. The reply
    1060
    I receive is that the woman pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining money from public funds by false pretences, and was convicted by the Court. The false pretences are on the part of the Ministry, and not on the part of the woman. The Minister tells me that he could not interfere with the sentence of the Court, nor could he undertake to evade his duty. If the Ministry will do their duty to these pensioners, these cases will not occur. I suggest to the Minister that he recedes from the position which he has taken up this afternoon, and that he should go into the matter more fully, and give these women at least the satisfaction of knowing that they are not going to be branded as criminals because they have taken temporary employment during the period of receiving a need pension.
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I thank the hon. Member who spoke last for having brought up a definite point which can be inquired into, namely, the question of temporary earnings. That was a perfectly legitimate issue, and I am prepared to go into the point he raised. But when he expects me to interfere with the Courts of Justice—Courts which are not under the jurisdiction of this Ministry—I say that the Ministry is not going to interfere as the result of any threats from anyone. With reference to the hon. Member who spoke first, I will endeavour to explain in the short time remaining a very difficult problem— not in individual cases—the question of entitlement and assessment involved. I wish quietly but firmly to protest against the use of the term "callous brutality" with reference to the staff of the Ministry of Pensions. That staff differs from a great many people whom I know in the fact that 97 per cent, of the men concerned served in the War. Some who at all events have not served in the War cheered the statement that these men who served in the War are callous and brutal in dealing with pensions. The hon. Member used an expression which I hope he will feel thoroughly ashamed of when he reads his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    What is this question? The question is one of assessment and entitlement.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I do not think that the question of War-service is under discussion.
    Captain HAY: As the one Member who cheered the words "callous brutality,' I wish to state that I also served in the War.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I also cheered it.
    Major TRYON: I am not talking about myself, or alluding to any individual, but I said that of the male staff of the Ministry of Pensions 97 per cent, are ex-service men. It is an insult to ex-service men collectively to suggest that these men are callous and brutal.
    Mr. SHORT: On a point of Order.
    Major TRYON: If hon. Members do not like my answer—
    Mr. SHORT: On a point of Order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to make a personal explanation.
    Mr. SHORT: When I used the words "callous brutality" I referred to the policy, not to the staff.
    Major TRYON: I am very anxious to continue this discussion on the lines of the very helpful spirit which was shown by hon. Members opposite in the Debate last night, but I cannot allow without protest references made not to the policy of the Government but to individuals. [Interruption.] Hon. Members, having taken up two-thirds of the time, are now endeavouring to prevent' me stating my case. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] I wish to say this, speaking on the question of tuberculosis. It is suggested that we are hardened or callous, or that there is something wrong in the way in which we are dealing with tuberculosis cases. We are now four years after the War. Hon Members opposite very naturally do not know what is being done. We are now going into cases which are coming up for the first time. In many of these cases the men have never been on our books as sick, and some of them have no claim beyond the fact that they served in the Army and are becoming?sick now. I do not for a moment say that they should not be considered, and we do consider them, but I should like hon. Members to know that at the present moment, on the average, from 20 to 25 cases of tuberculosis, first applications, are being admitted to pension every week. Although the War has been over four years, and the great majority of these
    1062
    men have been demobilised for nearly three, these 25 eases of tuberculosis represent only part of a group of 250 fresh claims which are being admitted every week for various kinds of disability.
    May I say to hon. Members, as shortly as I can, that they of course hear of the men who are not satisfied, but they do not know that, while pensions in some cases are being reduced, others are being increased, and of course they do not hear from the men who are being increased. I do not blame them, but they do not know that pensions are being increased in many cases and that the net effect of medical boards—this is an important point which hon. Members would like to add to their information, because we are all concerned in putting this matter right, and many hon. Members would like to help—in the last year all the cases of medical boards, some putting up and some putting down, resulted in a net reduction of 4 per cent, of the assessments over all the cases concerned. About two years ago the reduction used to be G per cent. So that the suggestion that we have adopted a new policy of cutting down at the present moment is not true, because the rate of reduction is much less now than it was two years ago, and that is one of the arguments which we put in the last House of Commons, and we were fortified by that argument in persuading the last House of Commons unanimously to pass a Bill giving us increased powers to grant final awards. We are pushing on with those final awards now.
    During the short time I have been in office, we have sent out orders to push the matter on still more rapidly. It is the real way to meet the difficulty of which my hon. Friend complains. Complaint is made about the medical boards. We are doing all we can to grant final awards and so got the men away. One difficulty of the medical boards is that there are cases where you cannot yet grant final awards for the very good reason that some of these men are getting worse. It has been suggested from one side of the House—I do not wish to put the case against any side of the House—that we ought to have no medical boards at all. How in the world are you going to deal with these 250 fresh awards every week if you do not have medical boards? I would point out, solely on the question of assessment and entitlement, that is the first duty of a medical board to ascertain

    1063
    the extent to which the man is disabled. That percentage having been measured, the case must necessarily be reviewed by the Ministry before entitlement can be granted. Having ascertained the man's service, his previous military history, and whether or not there is some fault against him, or some defect before the War, you must examine the case apart from the medical board before you can grant en-
    1064
    titlement. I am sorry not to have had longer to reply, but it was out of a desire to give both hon. Members a chance that I refrained from intervening sooner.
    It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.

  INDIAN STATES (PROTECTION AGAINST DISAFFECTION) ACT.
  INDIAN STATES (PROTECTION AGAINST DISAFFECTION) ACT.
  SALMON AND FRESH WATER FISHERIES.
  SALMON AND FRESH WATER FISHERIES.
  CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.
  CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.
AGRICULTURE.
  LABOURERS' WAGES.
  LABOURERS' WAGES.
  CREDIT FACILITIES.
  CREDIT FACILITIES.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  SCOTTISH CURED HERRING (EXPORTS)
  SCOTTISH CURED HERRING (EXPORTS)
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (BLACK SEA PORTS).
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (BLACK SEA PORTS).
  FOREIGN TRADE.
  FOREIGN TRADE.
  EMPIRE TRADE.
  EMPIRE TRADE.
  GAS CHARGES.
  GAS CHARGES.
  ENEMY ACTION (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  ENEMY ACTION (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S.
  UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S.
  POWELL DUFFRYN STEAM COAL COMPANY (WAGES).
  POWELL DUFFRYN STEAM COAL COMPANY (WAGES).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (OVERHEAD LINES).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (OVERHEAD LINES).
  SMALL-POX (VACCINATION).
  SMALL-POX (VACCINATION).
  MENTAL HOSPITALS (VOLUNTARY BOARDERS).
  MENTAL HOSPITALS (VOLUNTARY BOARDERS).
  POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS (CHILDREN).
  POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS (CHILDREN).
  PLUMSTEAD INFIRMARY (PATIENTS' MAINTENANCE).
  PLUMSTEAD INFIRMARY (PATIENTS' MAINTENANCE).
  SHIPBUILDING YARDS (WAGES).
  SHIPBUILDING YARDS (WAGES).
HOUSING.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  HANWORTH PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIETY, LIMITED.
  HANWORTH PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIETY, LIMITED.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  GOVERNMENT TENANTS, ELTHAM (ARREARS OF RENT).
  GOVERNMENT TENANTS, ELTHAM (ARREARS OF RENT).
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  CROFTERS.
  CROFTERS.
  WALTON INSTITUTION, LIVERPOOL.
  WALTON INSTITUTION, LIVERPOOL.
  CWMBRAN (MON.) WORKERS.
  CWMBRAN (MON.) WORKERS.
  BATLEY, MORLEY, OSSETT AND DEWSBURY.
  BATLEY, MORLEY, OSSETT AND DEWSBURY.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  KOAD SCHEMES, SCOTLAND.
  KOAD SCHEMES, SCOTLAND.
  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.
  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  EXPENDITURE.
  EXPENDITURE.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CARDIFF).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CARDIFF).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  WRITERS.
  WRITERS.
  PROMOTIONS.
  PROMOTIONS.
  OLD WARSHIPS (BREAKING-UP).
  OLD WARSHIPS (BREAKING-UP).
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY ENOINE FAILURES.
  RAILWAY ENOINE FAILURES.
  STREET TRAFFIC (CONTROL).
  STREET TRAFFIC (CONTROL).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION)
  MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION)
  ALIENS RESTRICTION ACT.
  ALIENS RESTRICTION ACT.
  PRISON ADMINISTRATION.
  PRISON ADMINISTRATION.
  JOHN BERKLEY (PROSECUTION).
  JOHN BERKLEY (PROSECUTION).
  ANTHRAX, DEWSBURY AND DISTRICT.
  ANTHRAX, DEWSBURY AND DISTRICT.
IRELAND.
  COMPENSATION CLAIMS AND RELIEF GRANTS.
  COMPENSATION CLAIMS AND RELIEF GRANTS.
  INVESTORS' RIGHTS.
  INVESTORS' RIGHTS.
  DISTRESS COMMITTEE.
  DISTRESS COMMITTEE.
  OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT.
  OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT.
  ADEN (ADMINISTRATION).
  ADEN (ADMINISTRATION).
  IRAQ LEVIES.
  IRAQ LEVIES.
  KILINDINI HARBOUR.
  KILINDINI HARBOUR.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  STAFF (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).
  STAFF (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).
  COUNTY COURT OFFICERS (PAY).
  COUNTY COURT OFFICERS (PAY).
  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
  BRITISH SUBJECTS ARRESTED, UNITED STATES.
  BRITISH SUBJECTS ARRESTED, UNITED STATES.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  SMYRNA (INQUIRY).
  SMYRNA (INQUIRY).
SCOTLAND.
  CREDIT WAREHOUSEMEN.
  CREDIT WAREHOUSEMEN.
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (PROVISION OF MEALS).
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (PROVISION OF MEALS).
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD.
The Right Hon. Frederick Edwin Viscount Birkenhead, having been created Viscount FURNEAUX of Charlton, in the County of Northampton, and Earl of BIRKENHEAD—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY'S PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DUNDEE HIGH SCHOOL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GLASGOW (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 7:
Purchase of tramways by local authorities.
7. The provisions of section 43 of the Tramways Act 1870 shall apply to the Trustees' tramways Provided that in the application of those provisions the period of forty-two years shall be substituted for the period of twenty-one years therein mentioned.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (VISCOUNT NOVAR): My Lords, I beg to move the deletion of Clause 7. This Order authorised the Glasgow Corporation to acquire and work certain tramways outside its district. In accordance with general Orders Clause 7 had been inserted, providing that the local authority of the district in which the tramways are situate
108
shall have power to purchase the tramways after 42 years. The promoters, however, represented to me that this clause should be deleted when the Order was before Parliament for confirmation, to enable the Corporation to own and to work the tramways in perpetuity. I beg, therefore, to move the omission of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7.—(Viscount Novar.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

IRISH FREE STATE CONSTITUTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the only previous occasion on which I have ventured to address your Lordships' House on an Irish question was very nearly ten years ago, in January, 1913. I then moved the rejection of the Home Rule Bill that was before your Lordships' House. I claimed at that time that it was almost an hereditary duty which had fallen to my lot to propose the rejection of a Home Rule Bill. Your Lordships, I think, will naturally sympathise with me in finding myself to-day, as a responsible Minister of the Government, in the position of moving the Second Reading of a Bill for the Constitution of the Irish Free State. I am confident that in present circumstances it would not be possible for any Government, however it might be composed, to take a course other than that which we are now recommending to your Lordships. It would be useless, and perhaps dangerous, to delve into past history, and to recall memories which might lead, in the complicated situation which exists, to recrimination, and, possibly, to the obscuring of the already difficult issues with which we are call upon to deal.
I am confident that we have to take the position as we find it. The only question is whether the Bill which I have the honour to present to your Lordships providing for the Constitution of Southern Ireland is or is not in accordance with the Treaty to which your Lordships gave your assent a short time ago. That Treaty, whether it be right or wrong, was agreed to by both Houses of Parliament. It has passed

109
through the ordeal of a General Election on both sides the Channel, and un-questionably, in the varied issues which were raised during the recent General Election in this country, the question of Ireland did not occupy that prominent position which it did on so many previous occasions. Moreover, the actual Bill relating to the Constitution of Southern Ireland and the consequential Bill which is a natural corollary of the main Bill, passed through the House of Commons in an incredibly short space of time, and so far as I am aware no single Division was taken either upon the principle or the details of the measures.
I venture, therefore, to submit that the one question we have to decide to-day is whether the Bill embodying the Schedule which sets forth the Constitution as drafted by the Irish Parliament is or is not in accordance with the Treaty. Probably no assembly in the world is better qualified than this House to express an opinion free from Party bias as to whether those conditions have been complied with. As a layman I am somewhat diffident in expressing an opinion, but I am prepared to rest my judgment, and also the judgment of the Government, on two grounds. In the first place, Clause 1 of the Bill now before your Lordships expressly makes the Constitution of Southern Ireland subject to the provisions set out in the Preamble of the Bill, and I hope it is clear from the Bill itself that the Treaty is the overriding instrument. Special pains have been taken in the drafting of the Bill to make that as clear as possible.
The second ground on which I ask you to agree to the proposition I have laid down is that not only have we the advantage of the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the present Law Officers of the Crown, but we are fortified in our judgment by the deliberate opinion of the late Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General in the late Government. Perhaps we may not always find ourselves in accord with the views which are advocated by the noble and learned Earl, or possibly with sonic of the methods by which he advocates them, but unquestionably there is no higher authority than he to express an opinion on this subject. In addition to that we have also the opinion of Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice, who, as a Law Officer of the Crown, took a prominent and distinguished part in the
110
negotiations which led up to the introduction of the Bill, and who has expressed his unqualified opinion that the Bill as now drafted is strictly in accordance with the Treaty as it passed through your Lordships' House.
I can, therefore, rest my case, and rest it solely, on the ground that the Bill is for all purposes strictly in accordance with the Treaty. Other provisions, no doubt of far reaching importance, are also included, but if we accept that general proposition as being established, I can claim the support of your Lordships for the Second Reading.
It will be unnecessary at this stage for me to trouble your Lordships with any protracted details in regard to the clauses of the Constitution Bill. The second clause provides transitory provisions in relation to financial affairs. They are complicated, but it is obvious that with a big change, such as is necessitated by the passage of this Bill, there must be considerable readjustments as between the two countries. This clause is necessary in order to enable those readjustments to be carried out. Clause 3 is inserted by agreement with the Provisional Government in Ireland. It enables the Irish Parliament, if it chooses, to place itself in the same position as other self-governing Dominions under Acts which apply to the Dominions. I understand it is very necessary that the Irish Government should have this power; and this clause takes the necessary steps to provide it.
Clause 4, I admit, raises a more difficult point. It was inserted by agreement with the Provisional Government in order to make it perfectly clear that nothing in the Bill should give the Irish Free State powers in excess of those which are provided by Articles 1 and 2 of the Treaty. Owing to the insertion of certain words it was thought necessary that this should be made perfectly clear. There is no ulterior motive behind it, as apparently some people may imagine; it has been inserted solely for the purpose of making it clear that nothing in the Constitution should be in excess of the powers provided under the Treaty itself.
Clause 5 makes clear beyond any possible doubt that what is known now as the "Ulster month" shall run as front the passing of this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that, in the previous discussions, there was considerable doubt as to the Act front the passing of which the

111
"Ulster month" was to run. This point was dealt with in an Amendment in one of the previous Acts, but in a negative form. It is now stated positively that it is to the passing of this Act that the "Ulster month" is to be referred.
It might he for the convenience of your Lordships if I also made a few references, not in any detail, to the second measure, the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Bill, which will be before us today. This Bill contains a number of provisions of a varied character, some of them necessitated by the actual passage of the Constitution Bill, and others, which I think will probably be more generally of interest to your Lordships, dealing with undertakings given by the late Government. For the legal purposes of this Act we have to assume that Northern Ireland is still part of the country to which the Act will apply, and a clause has been inserted in the second Bill to provide for a contingency, which as all will realise, will in the course of a very few days be no longer a contingency, but a reality. Full provision has been made for the purpose of enabling the Government of Northern Ireland, if it availed itself of the opportunity of contracting out of the Bill, to be provided with various powers. I hope, at any rate, that Northern Ireland is not dissatisfied with the provision which has been made after very long and full discussion and negotiation.
I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with many details, but I think I ought to direct your attention to the First Schedule of the Consequential Provisions Bill, where an important point has been inserted which is at variance with the Treaty itself. Your Lordships will remember that in the Act of 1920 provision was made for a Council of Ireland. It has, I think, been generally accepted that those proposals are unworkable and unfair, and that, if possible, some other arrangement ought to be made. I am glad to say that an Agreement has been reached between the three parties, the British Government, the Government of Northern Ireland and the Provisional Government. Under this Agreement, which is set out in the third section of the First Schedule, provision is made that the British Parliament should stand outside, if and when identical Acts are passed by the Parliaments of Northern and Southern Ireland. I trust, I hope not unjustifiably, that the
112
fact that an Agreement has been reached between the representatives of Northern and Southern Ireland may be regarded as I an augury of hope for the future.
Another point in connection with the Consequential Provisions Bill to which I shall direct your Lordships' attention at the moment is that an Agreement has been arrived at under which a question which I know was one of very serious consideration for many of your Lordships—I mean the question of double Income Tax—should be placed in the same position as it now occupies between this country and other self-governing Dominions. I trust that this will be a not unsatisfactory result and a relief to a great many of your Lordships.
Hitherto, I have referred only to matters which have been settled by agreement. There is, however, one point upon which I regret to say that no agreement has yet been arrived at. In the long history of the relations between this country and Ireland, and between Northern and Southern Ireland, there has been no subject of greater difficulty than the definition of boundaries between the North and the South, between Ulster and the other parts of Ireland. That question is, to-day, still unsolved. I can only express the hope that, when the Parliaments of Northern and Southern Ireland are well established, it will be possible for them, on this as on other points, to conic to an arrangement which will be mutually fair and honourable, and which, I trust, will tend to relieve a situation which is at all times fraught with so much anxiety and difficulty. Technically, I believe that we on this side of the Channel will have but little responsibility, but unquestionably, if we find ourselves in a position to make suggestions or to bring the two parties together, I can assure your Lordships that no effort will be spared by this Government to produce that satisfactory result.
In addition to the subjects contained in the Consequential Provisions Bill, there are one or two other points to which, with your Lordships' permission, I will refer, as I know that they are of some interest to your Lordships' House. The first is the question of compensation. On Monday last I made a long and, I am afraid, a very technical statement as to the position of compensation. I have nothing to add to or withdraw from that statement, but I hope I am justified in expressing not merely a

113
hope but a conviction that the Provisional Government will honestly do its best to see that justice is done.
The other point is the question of land purchase. Your Lordships are aware that our predecessors gave clear and unequivocal pledges in regard to the carrying out of land purchase. To those pledges we are prepared to adhere. It is obviously impossible for me at this moment to enter into anything like a detailed statement, but I can assure your Lordships that we consider ourselves bound, so far as any Government can be bound, to see that those pledges are redeemed in the fullest possible degree. We shall have to take, we are taking, those pledges up now, and we shall endeavour to carry them through with as little possible delay.
I know, my Lords, that we are asking you to give your assent to a Bill which many of you, and quite possibly the majority of you, regard with doubts and misgivings. It is a great experiment, but I think we on this side of the Table, at any rate, can claim that we are giving the fullest and amplest opportunity of trying and testing that experiment. This Bill has been drafted after deep thought and consultation. It is, I believe, a piece of drafting that carries out to the fullest degree the intentions of the promoters, but, after all, the success or failure of this experiment is not a question of draftsmanship, but a question of good will and sympathy. We trust, and we believe, that the new Parliament in Ireland will conduct its business in such a way as to prove that it is capable of carrying out, and fit to carry out, the work entrusted to it by this Constitution. However much in the past we may have been unwilling to enter into the various proposals which have been submitted to Parliament for many years, now that this Bill will in a short time be on the Statute Book we can only wish, most sincerely and earnestly, that it will be a success. We trust that in the era now opening in Ireland, dark and ominous as the immediate surroundings may be, a bright and happier prospect may be before the country, that happiness and prosperity may be again restored to it, and that at no distant date we may be able to see Ireland taking her proper place as one of the nations composing the British Empire. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, with whatever feelings your Lordships may regard this measure, whether of misgiving or of hope, you are, I am certain, assured of this, that its introduction is a very important matter in the history of this country, and that the dignity of the occasion could not be more fitly recognised than by the selection of the noble Duke to introduce the Bill, and the terms and words of the speech that he has just made in its support. I wish very much that it had been possible for Lord Grey to express the views that we entertain upon this side of the House with regard to the measure. It was his intention to be present for that express purpose, but die has been unexpectedly and unavoidably detained elsewhere, and his duty must be, however imperfectly, discharged by me.
We welcome the Bill. We welcome the Bill not only because it does give expression to a political ideal for which Liberals have struggled for many years, but also because we recognise that it has been the result of a great effort made by all Parties in this State to heal a sore that has been too long open, aryl to solve a question which at one time appeared to be past solution. It is, I think, no small credit to British statesmanship that a Government composed, as the present Government is, of many men who have been profoundly apprehensive of the dangers of granting self-government to Ireland, none the less feel themselves so bound in honour by what their predecessors have done, and so impressed with the gravity of the situation, that they are prepared entirely to sink their individual views and try to work together with other people for the accomplishment of this task. We are only too pleased to be associated with them in the duty.
The noble Duke said, and I think said wisely, that at such a moment it is no use going backward over the past, and indulging in recriminations as to the causes that have rendered Ireland such a difficult and dangerous problem for us to understand. I agree. It may well be that there have been mistakes on both sides. They had better be buried. It is no good recalling them for the purpose of showing that had this policy or that policy been persistently pursued the circumstances which have rendered necessary the introduction of this Bill would never have arisen. None the less, I think that

115
it is possible to look back and see what was the history of Ireland during the last century, in order to realise the prospects that this Bill may have of tending to secure the prosperity of that country for the future. The history of Ireland during the last century is one of the saddest episodes in the whole of the history of British rule. She has been torn from end to end by racial and religious strife, she has been honeycombed with sedition, decimated by famine, impoverished by exile, stained by crime, and humbled by oppression, but none the less throughout the whole of that period there is one thing that has always been kept alive, and that has been the passionate desire of the Irish people to be enabled to take their own destinies in their own hands, and to work out their own future. This Bill places that opportunity before them, and there is no one in this country who does not earnestly hope and desire that they may avail themselves of that opportunity to the utmost.
I must say that I think there is good promise of a great hope in the future in the manner in which this Bill has passed through the Irish Legislative Assembly. They adhered strictly to the terms of the bargain made, and they passed the Bill through in a businesslike session, which I am sure fills many of us over here with admiration and it may be some of us with surprise. If that is the way in which they are going to conduct their work in the future it may well be that the best hopes of their best friends will be realised. At the same time it is impossible not to feel the grave position in which they stand. For reasons into which I do not desire to enter, respect for the law in Ireland appears to have been completely overthrown and the present Government is engaged in one of the most painful and difficult tasks that can be imagined in attempting to secure its restoration. I am satisfied that although we can no longer render them material help, everything that can be done by the expression of our sympathy and our encouragement of them in their difficult task will be gladly afforded.
I said that this marked an important point in the historical relations between this country and Ireland. It does, but I hope that it is not the last matter that will be recorded here. It is perfectly plain that by no means whatever of coercion or constraint will it be possible to bring together the two divided portions of that country. But it does not follow that in the
116
end union may not come. Again and again, I have beard the most eminent, representatives of the North of Ireland say that if Ulster is to be won it must be won by example and not by violence. And if it be that the Government in the South of Ireland can show that they can establish peace and justice, that they can once more reinforce law and order, that they can develop the prosperity and the peaceful progress of that country, then it may be in the future that that union which everyone who desires the welfare of Ireland must specially desire will be effected, and that it will be no longer necessary to ask that question which remained unanswered from the days of Henry II, "What is it that cometh from Ireland that bringeth profit to the King?"
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, if I venture to address your Lordships from this [the Opposition] side of the House, I hope it will not be supposed that it is from any want of sympathy with those who are now in power on the other side. It is simply for convenience of debate on a subject in which many members who are of the same political complexion as noble Lords opposite have often sat on the Opposition side. I should particularly desire not to be supposed to be in any conflict with the present Government, if that were possible, as regards this particular Bill. I enter, perhaps as much as any man in this House, into the difficulties which now beset the Provisional Government. I am well aware of the task which they have to meet, and I am also as anxious as anyone can be that nothing should be said here which is likely to impede them in their task.
On the other hand, it would be impossible to allow the Second Reading of this Bill to pass without reminding your Lordships of the extraordinary course which, from the passage of events, the Government have found it necessary to take. This Bill is before us with, I might almost say, only a few hours in which we can possibly consider it. It is absolutely necessary, if we are to avoid considerable difficulties on the other side of the water, that we should pass it within three or four days, and yet I remember that at the time when the Treaty was discussed in this House, we made appeals to my noble friend behind me who was then on the Woolsack, and who made it as clear in this House as Mr. Winston Churchill made it in the

117
other House that tire Bill would receive full and free consideration by both Houses of Parliament. Events have made that impossible, but when we consider that this Act (as it will be in a few days) finally ends the control of this country over something like 3,500,000 British subjects—a number affected, I think, by only one previous measure of this kind which has passed this House—I think your Lordships will see how very grave is the issue which we have to try out now.
I do not think any measure which has ever come before us really deserved a more careful consideration than the one which we are now asked to pass. I do not go into the details, some of which were not touched upon by the noble Duke, but on which I think that those who have more legal knowledge than I have will probably desire to ask questions of the Government. There is much in the Bill which we—I mean those of us who are without legal training—cannot find within the terms of the Treaty. There is the question of the status of citizen set up, I believe, for the first tune in any of the constitutional Acts of Parliament passed by the Dominions. There is the question of the Royal Assent to measures, which stands in this Bill, as I am informed, on a different footing from that in which it stood in the North America Act, on the lines of which this Bill was expected to be framed. There is also the question of legal appeal, which stands on a footing different from that of the Union of South Africa Act, to which reference has been made. These questions are samples of many which, had time permitted and circumstances been different, must have been tried out.
But what I desire more especially to bring to your notice to-night does not concern the cases which may or may not be within the Treaty but which high legal authority has so ruled. I desire rather to draw attention to that which you are surrendering, to that to which you are exposing a large body of His Majesty's subjects, and to the pledges which have been given over and over again but which are violated in the Constitution now before the House. I hope I may be pardoned, as this Constitution Bill probably forms the last occasion when, at all events for a long time, we shall be asked to discuss this question, if I remind your Lordships of the difficulty in which those whom I have represented in the South have found themselves throughout this discussion.
118
From the time that it became clear that both Parties in this country felt that it was impossible to continue the struggle to carry on the government of 'Ireland from this country we have felt that it was not to the advantage of Ireland that we should further contest the point, and that the one thing we ought to work for was to obtain a good settlement, a settlement which could work, a settlement which would be effective in Ireland itself. To do that we believed, in the first instance—my retrospect will be very short—that we might have the assistance of Ulster, which unquestionably would have given a weight, an experience, and a financial strength which would have enabled Ulster to dominate the whole situation. That was found to be impossible when it was discovered that Ulster could only deal with matters within her own borders and was unprepared in any circumstances to take responsibility elsewhere. When that hope failed, all Parties in the South of Ireland, not only the minority for which I have spoken but even the Parties which were associated with the old Nationalist Party, insisted that every Parliamentary safeguard which could properly be put in for the protection of minorities should be inserted for due consideration by Parliament.
On that subject I should like to remind your Lordships of the pledges which were given, one by one. In the first place, we had the pledge of the Convention. In the Irish Convention of 1917–18 we were a Party of only nine or ten among 96 Irishmen, but the Senate which we put forward when the time came was accepted by the whole Convention, and if I wanted to emphasise to your Lordships how important, especially to a country with a new Parliament, such a check was, I could best do it by mentioning that when, at one of the later meetings of the Convention, great dissension arose with regard to the Customs Duties and the extreme members of the Convention were separated from us by their views, they did for a few hours propose that if we could not give way on that they on their part would be unable to enforce the strong safeguards which had been given in regard to the Senate. Such was the feeling of the leading political Nationalists that they came in and informed their colleagues that it would be impossible for them to govern Ireland unless they had such safeguards as a good Second Chamber would give from the hasty action of the Lower Chamber. Therefore, we got from

119
the Convention every pledge that we could get.
As regards His Majesty's late Government—I speak not only of the Prime Minister—we had the same promise of complete protection not from one member only but from all. Every man who spoke made the same promise that the minority should be protected. In your Lordships' House two years ago, when we received from the House of Commons a Bill for setting up a Single Chamber, a Senate was inserted. That Senate was accepted and its powers would have been adequate. Once more, in a conference to which three of my colleagues and I were invited earlier this year at the Colonial Office with the late Mr. Griffith, we received from hint assurances which I am quite certain he would have made good and which Mr. Cosgrave has made good as far as the force majeure with which they were faced has enabled them to do; and if I may express what I feel in regard to those successive Irish leaders, I can only say that if the representatives of the British Government on whom we had a claim had stood to their promises as well as those two Irish leaders endeavoured to stand to theirs, we should not be in the position we occupy to-day.
What is the position, my Lords? It has not been stated yet. It is that, with a Lower Chamber elected on the widest franchise which, I believe, exists at the present time in the world, certainly in the British Dominions, there is a Senate which is largely nominated in the first instance, and nominated to the extent that nobody can stand for it unless he receives nomination from one House of Parliament or has already served in it. Otherwise he cannot even stand for it. Therefore, the Senate must always be to a large extent the creature of the Lower House. But what are its powers? A Bill may be rejected, but the Lower House need take no action upon that rejection at all, and in nine months it becomes the law of the land. There is no necessity for the Lower House to consider the Bill again. Moreover, if Amendments are made in a Bill the Lower House will consider them, and, if it rejects them, the Bill become the law of the land in nine months.
The only security which is given, so far as it can be a security, is that where three-fifths of the Senate agree to ask for a Referendum, the Referendum is taken. But the Referendum, a machinery which
120
has often been advocated by my noble friend Lord Selborne, is most applicable in this country to a case where the House of Commons may be taking a part which your Lordships think the electors would not approve. In that case the Referendum is an admirable institution. But where the whole object of the Senate is to protect a minority which must always be a minority, reference to the people—again to the majority which, as a majority, has elected the House of Commons which in turn has nominated a large number of the Senate—is, in itself, a farce. What makes us regret it the more is this. I know the position in which my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who leads the House, stands in regard to the Bill. How curious that position is. Here in this House we have the power of delaying a Bill for nearly three years, and we have various other powers which are not given to the Irish Senate. I do not believe that my noble friend regards even those powers as adequate. Like many other noble Lords, he thinks that in regard to Money Bills we require further protection. In Ireland there is no protection at all.
In reference to the Parliament Act, whether that Act was correct or not, it has had this effect in the last ten or twelve years during which it has been in force, that there has never been, on the one hand, any occasion to employ it except in regard to the Home Rule Bill, and, on the other hand, the power it has given those who from this bench have negotiated with the leaders of the Government on the many questions which have arisen on disputed points in Bills has always enabled them to obtain sufficient to avoid the loss of the Bill. On no occasion that I know of has any Government had to bring in a fresh Bill in the next session to make good the concessions which they unwillingly made in the previous one. In other words, the Parliament Act has answered its purpose, and has attained that which this Bill will not attain.
Now, I ask on what ground, in the country of all others in the British Dominions which is seamed with the widest differences, in which the divisions have been more acute in the last few years than in any other—on what ground is the weakest Second Chamber which exists in any part of His Majesty's Dominions going to be established by this Bill? We gathered from the speech of the noble Duke, as also from the speech of the Prime

121
Minister, that the Government, whatever their views, feel that so long as the Constitution is within the Treaty they cannot discuss it. We have to consider our course in those circumstances. I said at the outset that the greatest desire we all have is not to injure the good feeling and the good will which have grown up in Ireland, so far as they have grown up. We cannot, in those circumstances, trouble your Lordships with Amendments, or make an attempt such as we made successfully two years ago when all the Southern Irish Peers were able to carry a large number of Amendments and to constitute a Senate which is now done away with. I fully enter into the difficulties of His Majesty's Government. They are forced to set their seal upon a measure which, after all the promises and pledges that have been given, embodies, I am inclined to think, the greatest repudiation of pledges that I have ever known on the part of His Majesty's Government to fellow citizens who, at events, had a right to deserve consideration at their hands.
As regards those of us who have pressed your Lordships in the past to give better terms in order to make Ireland so far free from trammels without that she could combine all the best, influences within her in working a Bill, our task is at an end. Every promise which was made to us, and that we have made to those who supported us among the minority in Ireland, has been violated. We have always told them that if, doing violence to their own desires to be governed by this country, they assented to and assisted in a change of Government the ample Parliamentary protections which they had been promised would be given. That promise has now been rendered of no effect. So far as I and most of my friends are concerned we cannot support this Constitution. I am not going to ask your Lordships to reject it, but if there were a Division I, for one, could not go into the Lobby to vote for this Bill.
I have been honoured by being approached to serve on the new Senate when it is constituted. It is perfectly useless, in my opinion, for any man to hope that he will do good by serving on that Senate where he will have responsibility without power, and where he will have the privilege of addressing his arguments only to persons who cannot make them effective by any change in the measure upon which he speaks.
122
I would only ask your Lordships to consider, in passing tins Bill, that you ring down the curtain on the constitutional discussions which have been waged in this House, at intervals, for more than a generation. For thirty-seven years, at intervals, this question has occupied so much of the attention of Parliament that it cannot simply be buried in Hansard, and the question undoubtedly will be asked how it was that, at the end we arrived at what seems to me to be a lamentable conclusion when it would have been possible, before the Treaty was actually signed, to have made a totally different arrangement. I was summoned with some of my friends by the Prime Minister the day after the Treaty was signed. I was then informed of its terms. I am not going to accuse the Prime Minister of indifference to his past statements, much less of deliberately changing that which he had undertaken to do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend is referring to the late Prime Minister?
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Yes, to Mr. Lloyd George. I make no, accusations. I know under what pressure of business he always worked. I never knew a man so startled as he appeared to be when we pointed out to him that all the pledges which had been made to us had been ignored, and that we were left by the Treaty without, any remedy except that which we could obtain from those who would rule in Ireland. If my noble and learned friend were sitting here still, I would be forced to tell him to his face what I feel, that those who listened to the impassioned speeches which he has delivered respecting the condition of the minority in Ireland—not merely the normal minority, but the 350,000 men whom we represent—would hardly have believed that his hand would also have been put to the Treaty, and that our interests would have been ignored. In his case we have built our house on the sand.
If it could be said at this moment that conditions were so much more favourable in Ireland that the Government were justified in making a fresh departure—the noble Duke called it a great experiment—I should feel differently, but your Lordships will recollect that two years ago, when we asked for more extended powers, powers far short of those which have now been

123
given, in order to give us a chance of peace, the majority of your Lordships felt that the dangers of the situation were too great. I ask any man in this House if he thinks now that the dangers and the difficulties are less than they were two years ago. Again, if it is felt that the progress of the world has taught that Single-Chamber Government is practicable in Ireland, I would point out that the progress of the world in the last two years has been such as to make us afraid of the haste of Parliamentary movements, especially in this country, where we have seen turns and changes in the House of Commons, and the repeal of Acts that have been passed in haste and repented of at leisure. These events make one rather think of the old toast in Scotland of 1806: "May the excesses of the House of Commons ever be repressed by the House of Lords." I believe that if the late Election had been fought 011 a difference between the two Houses that sentiment would have had greater support in the last Election than in any Election since 1806.
We cannot look for the solution there. We must look for it in the sort of speech which was made by my noble and learned friend from this Bench two nights ago when he congratulated this House upon the circumstance that the terrible punishments which have had to be inflicted in Ireland were inflicted by Irishmen on Irishmen and not by Englishmen on Irishmen. In fact, he put it more delicately than it was put in one of the speeches made by a colleague of his a few months ago, who crudely said: "After all, it is only a question of Irishmen shooting each other. Ulster, fortunately, is safe."
I do not envy the feelings of those who in future will have to look back on two facts. The first fact is that under their unfair government, and, as I think, to a large extent by the impolicy of the changes of policy that signalised the administration of Ireland in the last six years, the minority who have stood by this country at every crisis, who, in consequence of the late war, have left a larger quota of names proportionately than almost any other community on the roll of honour—I believe Northern and Southern Ireland stand as well as your Lordships' House in the sacrifices they have made in proportion to their numbers—the minority feel that they are being plundered and murdered, their houses burnt down, and that they
124
have lost practically everything which makes life dear and property safe, because they have been deprived of the power of influencing in some degree the new administration of the country.
The noble Duke ended his speech in terms of hope. I do not find it easy to follow him in that respect, but I trust that some men of means, experience, and public spirit, will still be able to do something for the country to which they are bound by so many ties and for which they have made such great sacrifices. If they do so, it will be through their own courage and tenacity. It will not be through the justice that has been meted out to them by this Parliament. Posterity will, I think, wonder that a great nation, when concluding a struggle of thirty-seven years with concessions which are meant to heal the sores of six hundred years, should abandon those who have been their strongest supporters and give that which is, I think, unparalleled in any Act of Parliament ever passed through this House, and will, I hope, prove to be one that will not be repeated in the future.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, during the recent stages of the Irish controversy I have not always agreed with the views of the noble Earl who has just spoken, but I have watched with admiration the way in which he has fought the battle of the minority for whom he speaks, and all your Lordships must feel great sympathy with him in the position in which he now finds himself, when the late Government have broken, as he has shown, all the pledges they gave to those for whom he speaks and for whom he negotiated. I agree with him that when we come to the Committee stage we shall have to ask several questions of the noble Duke in charge of the Bill and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in respect of points of the Constitution which are obscure.
May I refer for one moment to the noble and learned Lord who has spoken for the Opposition? I am afraid that he and I hold diametrically opposite views about the Irish question; but in one matter I do agree with him. I agree with him without reservation that this House and this Government have no choice whatever except to pass the Bill. Those of us who have been opposed from the beginning, root and branch, to the policy of the

125
Treaty have held no other language either in this House or outside than that, once Parliament had committed the honour of England to this Treaty, England must observe her word. I thought it was ungenerous of Mr. Austen Chamberlain in one of the speeches he made during the recent Election to gibe at my noble friend who is leading the House at the present moment because he had said that he would not oppose the passing of this Bill. In this House and outside of it, before there was any question of a political crisis, my noble friend had said the same thing.
The immediate result of tire Treaty has been, apparently to reduce Southern Ireland to bankruptcy and the greater part of it to a welter of anarchy. And what is such a terrible consideration for all of us, Englishmen and Scotsmen, is this: that those on whom the brunt of this appalling misery has fallen have been those who have been most loyal to the King and a Lost friendly to England. I cannot help drawing a contrast between the condition of things in Southern Ireland and the condition of things in Northern Ireland, and that contrast is not due only to the difference in the people who inhabit the North and the South.
I want to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the late Government did not withdraw the troops from the North, nor immediately disband all the police, directly the Treaty was made. I do not believe a greater blunder, a more cruel blunder, was ever made than the withdrawal of the troops and the police in the South before it was possible for the Government to substitute anything for them. There is no country in the world in which, if you take away on one day all the forces of law and order, there will not be a relapse towards anarchy. I do not say that the relapse anywhere would be quite so serious as in Ireland; but the measure of blame on the late Government for taking away all the troops and all the police long before the new Government could possibly organise any force to take their place will rank in history as one of the most cruel and stupid acts of any administration.
The authors of this policy believe that in the long run it will settle the Irish question and effect a reconciliation between Great Britain and Ireland. With my whole heart I hope they are right and that I am wrong. But, as I am firmly convinced that it is not going to settle the Irish
126
question, and that that question will be as acutely present to our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren as it was to our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, I claim the right now to state my reasons for that opinion. Once this Bill becomes an Act we shall all be hound to do all in our power to make it a success; therefore, the least said about the policy the better.
I put aside for the moment all question of the peculiarities of Irish temperament or of the results of the history of England and Ireland, and I affirm that the geographical relation of Great Britain and Ireland makes a Dominion status inapplicable to their political relationship. I am not going to weary your Lordships with an attempt, to deal exhaustively with this great constitutional question, but I wish to mention three respects in which I confidently affirm that history will show that this relationship is not a possible one. First of all, I take the question of Customs, and of different tariffs. Everyone knows that tariffs are one of the most fruitful objects of disagreement in the world. This is one of the very questions which have been responsible for some of the bitterest feelings between England and Ireland in years gone by. I can never forget the impression made upon me in South Africa by this very question. When I first went to South Africa, it was a country with four different Governments and four different, scales of Customs, and the friction was so great that we were always in a state of anxiety. I affirm quite deliberately that the main cause of the Union of South Africa was the conviction of all Parties, British and Boers alike, that the Customs and railway differences would one day produce war between the Colonies unless there were a Union. It was the friction of the Customs, more than anything else, that brought about the Union of South Africa.
The second point is the Army. There are going to be, within the British Isles, two Armies, a British Army and an Irish Army, under the command of different people. It is quite unnecessary to enlarge upon that. I would simply say that, looked at in the best light, it is highly inconvenient, and looked at in the worst, it is profoundly dangerous. I observe with horror that there is a suggestion in the Treaty that hereafter there may be established an Irish Navy, or the rudiments of an Irish Navy. I cannot believe that any British Board of Admiralty would ever give its consent to any such provision.

127
Now I come to Article 1 of the Treaty, which declares that
"Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the community of nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada"
and the other Dominions. What is that status? It is unwritten and undefined. If there were a difference of opinion about this status, how would that difference of opinion be settled? I can think of no means of settling it except an Imperial Conference. That alone could be the tribunal to settle any acute difference of opinion as to that status. This undefined and unwritten Constitution works quite well between the old Dominions and Great Britain, for two reasons—(1) because all the parties to it want to work it; and (2) because they are separated by vast distances of sea. It does not in the least follow that the Irish will be equally willing and desirous of working this Constitution, and there is the whole world of political difference between six thousand miles and sixty.
Let me take the question of foreign affairs. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, will correct me if I make a mistake, but I believe that at the last Imperial Conference the suggestion was made that the Dominions should have their own Ambassadors at foreign Courts.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: The suggestion was not made at the Conference, but it was made informally.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend behind me tells me that it was made, not at the Conference, but informally, but I think it was admitted that, if a Dominion wished to have an Ambassador of its own at a foreign Court, it might do so. I confess quite frankly that, with all my immense admiration for the old Dominions, and my perfect confidence in their loyalty to the Commonwealth of Nations known as the British Empire and to the King, I tremble to think how the foreign policy of the British Empire is going to be conducted, even with the best will in the world, if there are six British Ambassadors, each owning allegiance to a different Government, at each of the foreign Courts. But this claim has been made and admitted, and therefore the Irish will be able to say: "We claim to have our Ambassador, an Irish Ambassador, at the foreign Courts."
128
I understand that, when the Provisional Government was formed, an Irish Foreign Minister was actually appointed. What was that Irish Foreign Minister appointed for? What was he going to do? There is no Foreign Minister in Canada; there is no Foreign Minister in Australia; there is no Foreign Minister in South Africa, or in New Zealand. But the Provisional Government have already appointed a Foreign Minister. Does that not mean that they want to take advantage of this admission, and to appoint their own Ambassador? What are going to be our relations with America, for instance, if there are two Ambassadors at Washington, one appointed front London and the other front Dublin? What would be our position today if there were an Irish Ambassador at Constantinople? But all this is possible, as I understand it, under the Treaty. Is it unlikely that this status will be interpreted quite differently in Ireland from the interpretation put upon it in Canada, or in Australia, or in South Africa? The whole attitude of the Irish, their mentality, their standard of reason, their motives, are quite different from those, not only of the people of Great Britain, but of the inhabitants of any one of the Dominions, because there are in Ireland a large number of extreme men, whose only intellectual position is malignant hatred of England, and those men have hitherto in the long run dominated public opinion in Ireland.
I think it was only two days ago that heard the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, boast in this House that 80 per cent. of the electors in Ireland had voted for the Treaty. But he does not know, any more than I know, in what sense they voted for the Treaty. I think some light can be thrown on this matter from the published Report of the debates which have taken place in Dublin during the passing of this very Constitution. I will trouble your Lordships with only two or three extracts taken, not from the speeches of private individuals, but from those of Irish Ministers. What do I find? Mr. Ernest Blythe, Minister for Local Government, said—
"We all believe and hold that the Treaty may be annulled. We all hold that, when the Irish nation wishes, when it finds it disadvantageous, it may annul on proper notice any Treaty it has entered into. We regard that as fundamental."
And Mr. O'Higgins, Minister for Home Affairs, on September 25, said—

129
"There has been much said about this Treaty to the effect that there was duress. Undoubtedly, there was duress. The Irish people have taken this Treaty as the best thing they could do in the circumstances of the time. Now I hold that in the case of a Treaty—and I think in what I am going to say now I am expressing the minds of a great many people throughout the country—that in case of a Treaty signed under circumstances and conditions like that the position is simply that at any moment in the future the majority will of the Irish nation can publicly, and absolutely without dishonour, repudiate that Treaty if they consider it wise to do so."
I would like to ask the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, if he admits that interpretation of the Treaty.
I am sure he does not. I am sure he would say that the Treaty was in honour binding on the Irish as on the British people. What standard of honour is this? It is the standard of the scrap of paper, and nothing else. Then what ground, when these things are said by Irish Ministers before Parliament has passed this Constitution, has the noble and learned Earl for getting up and asking your Lordships to feel assured and comparatively hopeful because 80 per cent, of the voters in Ireland voted for the Constitution under this Treaty. The very best that can be said is what my noble friend below me said, namely, that it is a great experiment. I should prefer to call it a reckless gamble with the happiness of Ireland and the safety of England.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, may I intervene for two reasons? In the first place, I have the misfortune to differ from my two noble friends who immediately preceded me in the views which I previously held with regard to the action of the late Government in coming to a Treaty with the Government of Southern Ireland as a result of the Conference, and I only want to say very briefly indeed why it was I felt it my duty to support the Government last summer, and why I support it now. One of the reasons is to be found in the two speeches to which I have listened this afternoon. I have listened with the utmost sympathy to the speech of the noble Earl opposite, who spoke with profound feeling and out of experiences which, we all know, were gathered in resolute, courageous, and very able efforts to serve his country in what he considered to be a time of great crisis. I respect the attitude which he and the noble Earl below me have taken up consistently in opposing the Treaty and everything
130
connected with it, but I do submit, not only to this House but to all those who are asking themselves what ought to be their attitude in the present situation, that whether the arguments advanced by my two noble friends be sound or not, one thing is undoubtedly true, and that is that they come at far too late a period in the debates on this painful question.
My noble friends, of course, are entitled to put their view before the House and the country. I am not criticising them, and they have abundant justification in the fact to which I have already referred, that they are not new views. But I am, only asking myself what is the best service that any of us can render to our common country and common Empire? I have listened to the speeches of my two noble friends, as I have listened to the speeches of others who have addressed criticisms to the policy of the late Government in regard to Ireland, and especially criticisms as to the results of the Treaty, but those speeches have left me in despair greater than that in which they found me, because of what do they consist? They consist of criticism, which is easy enough for anybody to make who knows anything about the present condition or the past history of Ireland—criticism which is powerful, eloquent, and, it may be, based upon solid foundations, but nothing is done or made by criticism alone, and in those circumstances what alternative is there offered? That is the reason that led me to support his Majesty's Government.
I had been myself responsible for the government of Ireland. I was, in the Government of Mr. Lloyd George, responsible in a sense for the policy that was being carried out in Ireland in the days of Lord French and. Mr. Shortt. I felt myself, as I never felt before, when brought into close and direct contact with the condition of things in Ireland, the only criticism so often advanced as one of the justifications for passing a measure of Home Rule, namely, the fact that you had the sentiment and feelings of the people of the country against you, that that had grown a hundredfold, nay a thousand-fold, in the two or three years that had passed.
What was the alternative? I know that some of my noble friends in this House, and others outside, say that this is a policy of cowardice. I am content to leave that to those who have followed the public life of men in this country, and I am confident

131
that they will never accuse us of cowardice. The only alternative was the reconquest of Ireland by a considerable body of troops. I think the number of troops that would have been required has been greatly exaggerated, and that it is much smaller than that which is commonly mentioned. I am not, however, thinking of that, but I ask those who say that it was a policy of cowardice not to send an Army over and reconquer Ireland, what would have been the result when the reconquest was over? As one who claims to be as good a Conservative and as good a Unionist as any other noble Lord in this House, I say it is as certain as night follows day that if you had had another reconquest of Ireland you would have had a more estranged, a more embittered and a more hopeless Ireland than you had at the time of the Treaty or than some of my noble friends think you have now.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord who followed the noble Duke that this is a very solemn and great occasion. It is not from any sense of pleasure that I have thought it my duty to intervene in this debate, because I believe that never in the history of our Parliament is it more true that if speech is silvern silence is golden. On occasions like this it is difficult to say anything which will help, and it is easy to throw some grit into the machine which will prevent the wheels from going round. There is one aspect of the case which weighed heavily with me at the time, and which I feel, to-day, is perhaps, on the whole, the strongest reason that led me to support the policy of the Government and leads me to support the Bill which is before your Lordships' House today. My experiences, during the war, were gathered in two of our great Departments, and I learned, as I have ventured to say before to your Lordships, a lesson which I am confident I shall never forget, and which I shall do my best to hand on to those who were not so fortunate as I was in direct experience. I learnt that if we are going to carry on this Empire, as we want to carry it on, as a self-supporting and really united Empire, we must give consideration to the views and opinions of all parts of the Empire.
It has been said that it was fortunate that the executions which have recently taken place in Ireland were carried through by an Irish, and not by an English, Government. It has been said by the noble Earl
132
opposite that the condition of Ireland to-day does not promise any great returns from this new policy. At all events, you have got a marked change in Ireland on the part of a great portion of the population towards the existing Government. It may be that in their task of almost superhuman difficulty they have not yet secured the support of the whole population, but does anybody deny that the Government of Ireland in Ireland to-day is in a totally different position, as regards the great mass of the people in Southern Ireland, from that which has ever been occupied by an English Government for the last thirty years? Because, if they do, I am confident that the evidence and the facts are against them.
But you have got something else. I was impressed more than I can describe—and the noble Duke who is in charge of the Bill knows better than I do whether I am exaggerating in this statement or not—I was impressed by the entire absence (I will not put it any higher than that) of any support of our policy in Ireland on the part of those who were responsible for the Government of our great Dominions. Some of them were more insistent and more enthusiastic in their advocacy of Home Rule than others, but in no quarter could you find acceptance of our principle of denying to the Irish people the same right to govern themselves as had been given to the people of the Dominions and had produced such successful results. And it is an asset worth having to-day that we have the cordial sympathy and approval of our great Dominions in the steps which we are taking. Further than that, we find that the great sister country, the United States of America, refuses now to entertain any of the grievances that come from Ireland, because she holds that the British Government has done its part, and that no more sympathy is due to the Irish people. That also is an asset worth having.
It is easy to find fault with, and to criticise, parts of this Bill. Surely, our duty to-day is to ask ourselves whether or not this Bill, approving the Irish Bill creating a Constitution for Ireland, conforms to the terms of the Treaty. Is it, in other words, the realisation of the Treaty, or is it not? We laymen cannot answer that question. I read the speeches in the House of Commons, I listened carefully to the speech of my noble friend below me, and we have a wealth of the highest legal

133
opinion in the country in agreement that this Bill does faithfully carry out the Treaty in all points. And that legal opinion is drawn not only front those who, either as late Ministers of the Crown or as Ministers of the day, are, or have been, themselves responsible for the Bill, but it comes also from one of the greatest of our lawyers, a great Judge now quite independent of politics. I think we are bound to take the views that have been so expressed, and which seem to me to be ample security that the Bill does carry out the Treaty.
Some forecast has been made of what may happen under this Bill. I do not pretend to make any forecast. I cannot help believing, even in the midst of all the suffering and misery through which we have passed lately in connection with Ireland, that the great genius of our race, which has solved this question of self-government as no other country or Empire in the world has solved it, will triumph again; that out of this suffering and this welter of bloodshed there will come an altered and improved condition of things. And I cannot help believing, as well as hoping, that the people of Ireland, even at this eleventh hour, will take advantage of the opportunity which has been offered to them, and make a reality of their Government. If they do that, then I believe that friendship and good will towards this country will follow.
I do not desire to say anything which would seem to convey mistrust of the Irish Government. I appreciate their difficulties, and sympathise with them in the terrible circumstances with which they have found themselves surrounded. I quite understand also the difficulty of the situation of His Majesty's Government here. But I think they ought to take note of what fell from my noble friend who urged that a very grave mistake, the consequences of which can hardly be calculated, was made when this new form of Provisional Government was established in Ireland, and all the forces upon which you relied for the protection of law and order were removed before others were ready to take their places. Whether this was necessary in the opinion of the Cabinet or not—I imagine it was—I think it does throw a great measure of responsibility upon the British Government; and, whether the British Government agree or not with what was clone, they are accepting courageously and, as I think, rightly the full responsibility of this new Irish policy.
134
I appeal to them in the name of all that is just and all that is humane to aid the Irish Government as far as possible in doing something definitely and promptly for those unfortunate Irish people in the South and West who are suffering under cruelties which it is almost impossible for ordinary language to express. Some of them are asking for material assistance, some of them are asking for protection on the spot. That, I believe, is very difficult to give; more difficult than it ever was. But material assistance—the means to move them from where they are to this country or somewhere else—can be given. I have been into the matter very closely. I do not believe it involves a, large sum of money, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will discuss this with the representatives of the Provisional Government, and, with as little delay as possible, conic to the aid of these men and women, who, remember, are suffering to-day mainly because they have stood by this country in the past, and have been loyal to the Crown and to our Constitution.
I hold that the Government of this country has a great responsibility for the case of the discarded officers, such as the heads of the various police forces, and others. I am told that the official view taken by the Treasury is that these men have all ceased, or will cease on December 6, to be employees of His Majesty's Government, and that therefore the Irish Government alone are responsible for them. That view may be strictly correct in point of law, but I hold that it is not just and fair to these men. I ask for more than justice and fairness even; I ask that the Government should treat them with generosity, should put them in a position to be able to leave the country in which some of them cannot live with safety because of their courageous and loyal conduct, and to leave on such terms that they can live in some decency and provide for their wives and children.
Their case is hard enough, their future is doubtful enough, however generous you may be. But the Government can do something to improve their position. I pray them to do all they can to join in this matter with the Government of Ireland, and I hope there will be no squabbling as to whether this or that portion of the money is to be charged to this or that Government. It is a very small sum which is due to these men. It is due to them, I think, because of the services which they

135
have rendered, and I appeal to the Government to give their case which is now before us their most friendly consideration. It is with no feeling of enthusiasm that I support this Bill, but from a firm conviction that it is the only possible policy and that, believing it to be in strict conformity with the Treaty, it is our duty to support it. With all my heart I pray that by the blessing of God it may bring peace to Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I am sure that the speech to which we have just listened will have a most, excellent effect throughout the country. We all know the way in which the noble Viscount has always acted as a friend of Ireland and as an administrator, and there is a generosity about his speech which will have a great effect. I rise in order to say a very few words in reference to some remarks which fell from the noble Earl who preceded the noble Viscount. When, at the conclusion of his forcible and dignified exposition of the Bill, the noble Duke expressed his wholehearted desire for its success, there was general assent throughout the House. I do not know whether the noble Earl audibly joined in that expression or not, but in his own speech he expressed the hope that he would prove to be wrong in his forebodings. I confess that I was somewhat puzzled as to the object of the noble Earl's speech in the present circumstances, unless it was to prove that if, unhappily, his forebodings were realised, he could claim to be a true prophet.
There was one sentence of his of which I could not help taking note. He spoke of the number of people in Ireland who were actuated only by malignant hatred of England, and said that such people have always dominated public opinion in Ireland. I am not going to discuss how far that is true, but I think that the prospect—it is more than a prospect—now is that such people will not dominate public opinion in Ireland. It is their representatives who are causing trouble and misery there at the present time. They, like the noble Earl—he will forgive me for saying so—object to the Treaty; they want to nullify and destroy it. They are actuated by the dream, the absurd, impracticable and chimerical idea, that if they make the state of things in Ireland absolutely anarchical, if they make them worse even than they are to-day, the British
136
forces will come in and reconquer the country, and Ireland will be brought together again. That notion will not last for long.
We ought, I think, to remember that those who have made it possible for this Bill to 'come before us to be discussed in peace and safety, have been working literally at the risk of their lives. I refer to the Ministers of the Provisional Government. We might, I think, indulge our imaginations a little. Let us suppose that there was in this country such a state of things that the Prime Minister could not come from Downing Street to the Houses of Parliament without the knowledge that half-a-dozen revolvers were prepared to be discharged at him during that brief journey. He would not, of course, be deterred by that. Neither the present Prime Minister nor any British Prime Minister would be deterred from coming down to the House to fulfil his ditties; but he could not prevent an army of police guarding every inch of the way. Such is the case in Dublin, where, owing to the wild and desperate efforts of so-called Republicans, the Ministers of the Provisional Government cannot move in safety at any hour of the day or night. Yet they have stuck to their work, and loyally—I use the word deliberately—completed the difficult task of enabling this Bill to be presented to us.
I cannot sit down without associating myself with what has been said regarding the deplorable sufferings which have been inflicted upon so many persons during this time of confusion and disturbance in the South of Ireland; I limit myself for the moment to the South of Ireland. These Ministers of whom I have spoken are striving to bring about a state of things which I am convinced will put an end to those sufferings. While we remember that these troubles and calamities are spoken of ordinarily as affecting loyalists in the technical sense, we must not forget that there are others who, though, perhaps, hitherto they have not been in the class which could be technically described as loyalists to Great Britain, are suffering also because they support the Free State, and they are subjected to persecution simply because they maintain that the Free State should be carried to completion. I think our sympathy should be of an enlarged sort. The noble Viscount said that it was something which should be referred to in

137
more than mere expressions of sympathy, and. I join with him in hoping that every possible endeavour will be made to give recompense and relief of a practical character.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: My Lords, as one of the members of your Lordships' House who have been associated in times past with the government of Ireland, I may, perhaps, be allowed to add a word or two to this discussion. The Bill introduced by the noble Duke will not, I think, meet with serious opposition in this House. Whatever criticism we have heard comes somewhat late, for this Bill really is little else than the ratification of the Treaty reached between the late Government on the part of Great Britain and representatives of Ireland. In passing, it may be observed that but for the existence of the Coalition, which recently has come to stink somewhat in the nostrils of noble Lords who sit opposite as well as of those who sit upon this side of the House, it is probable that the Treaty and the Bill which is the result of that Treaty would not be before your Lordships at this moment.
I do not think that the Bill will meet with serious opposition from members of your Lordships' House who come from Ireland. When I recall the moving appeal made in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Desart, that we should come to some terms with the Irish people, I can hardly believe that serious opposition will be forthcoming from that quarter. As for the noble Marquess who leads the House, he has admitted that in this connection he has a past, but he is disposed to view the Bill with at any rate benevolent acquiescence, and although perhaps that may seem to involve superficial inconsistency on his part, I think it is more than outweighed by the spirit of political sagacity which is naturally associated with the name he bears.
It must be admitted that the present Bill is a radical departure from the traditional attitude respectively taken up by almost all Parties and all sections of your Lordships' House on the Irish question. It differs just as much from the resolute government advocated from those Benches as it does from the conciliation and Home Rule which have been associated with the Party to which I belong. But, most of all, it differs from the point of view which persists in regarding Ireland and the Irish people
138
as being as much an integral part of Cleat Britain as Hampshire or the inhabitants of Hampshire, which led at one time to the misguided and ill-fated attempt to conscript the Irish people to fight for a cause which they persisted in regarding as not their own.
The Union with Great Britain which has existed for so long is to be dissolved, and the question is what use Ireland will make of her emancipation. I am quite prepared to agree that it must be regarded in the nature of an experiment. There is no precedent for such a course as that upon which we are embarking to-clay, and it is an experiment certainly not unattended by risk. It would be disingenuous to pretend that no risk and no danger to this country and to Ireland attached to the experiment. To mention only one or two of the many risks, there is, of course, the military preoccupation. The whole history of Great Britain and Ireland teems with military dangers and difficulties coming to this country from over there. It was I believe, one, if not the n, determining cause which induced Pitt to bring about the Union. It is quite true that this Bill contains adequate safeguards—at least considerable, and, I hope, adequate safeguards—to meet any possibility of that kind, and I have no doubt that if these safeguards were not respected they would be enforced, but I think that we shall all agree that the best security will come from what we hope will be the changed spirit of the Irish people towards Great Britain. Once the source of irritation is removed—aye, and of humiliation, for the Irish people, as we know, are a touchy people, with a very good historical recollection—once the source of irritation and humiliation is removed, as it will be removed under this Bill, it is very much to be hoped, with the natural interest that the propinquity of Ireland to this country, to say nothing of the identity of language and other things of that kind will create, that Ireland will come to regard us not only as her best customer but also as her best friend.
There is always the difficulty still remaining of the minorities in Ireland, separated as they are from the majority by both racial and religious differences. The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, alluded to that in appealing terms. I hope that he, and people like him, will endeavour to continue the patriotic and the high-spirited action which they have pursued in the past, and

139
not, cut themselves from the new Government either in despair of its achieving all they would like, or for any other reason. I hope that that will go a long way towards healing such differences as have existed, and may, to some extent, exist in the future.
If there are some risks attendant on this experiment, there are also, I think, considerable advantages. In the first place, from the point of view of Great Britain, we get rid of the suggestion that the doctrine of self-determination, which we preached with so much insistence during the war and which we have applied to European nations, is not applicable to our affairs at home. There is the further and greater advantage of throwing upon Ireland the responsibility of self-government. A great many of the difficulties which we have had to face have, I think, arisen from the fact that Ireland has never really been responsible for her affairs, and that the sense of responsibility which has so sobering an effect upon politicians has been absent there. Now, the Irish people will have to face the difficulties which previously confronted us, and that, I think, will have a very sobering effect upon a good deal of what has been characteristic if the Irish temperament.
I am sure that the British people will watch the working of this experiment in the spirit of patience and good will. Those of us who have had the advantage of being in close touch with Irish life and Irish people in the past will be especially anxious to wish Ireland the best of good fortune in this great experiment which she has undertaken. We recognise how gifted and endowed the Irish people are, and how, if they are difficult to govern, they are, in fact, a very lovable people, and we hope that success may attend their endeavours. There is no doubt whatever that they have a task of very great difficulty before them, but we are encouraged from the way in which the men who have been responsible of late for the Provisional Government have stuck to their bond and to the pledged word which they gave to Britain. The way that they have attempted to deal with the extremely difficult problems with which they have been faced is an encouragement, too. I hope we shall live to see the day when we shall look back upon this action without feeling that we did the wrong thing.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I rise for the briefest possible space
140
of time, and principally because, in the course of the discussion, my name has been more than once referred to. Let me, in the first place, say that I make myself responsible, equally with other legal authorities, for the view that the Constitution is in conformity with the Treaty, and, therefore, that the decision which is to be taken, as I understand to-night, is a decision which proceeds upon that basis.
The noble Duke who is in charge of the Bill, adopting a course, I think, a little unusual, and, I should have thought, a little unwise in the case of one who is dealing with a supporter of a Bill presenting some difficulty-, went out of his way, after giving me the advantage of his favourable opinion as to my accomplishments as a constitutional lawyer, to say that he did not agree with what he was pleased to describe as the methods with which I present my views. I have had somewhat more experience, I think, than the noble Duke in presenting difficult measures, and in carrying them through Parliament, and he will allow me to say without offence that it is not on the whole a wise or a judicious proceeding to begin by an observation of that kind in relation to a member of the House who happens to agree with him on the particular subject before the House and who, if he spoke at all, would speak as a supporter of the proposal. The observation was from my point of view even more difficult, because, unfortunately, I cannot retort upon the noble Duke by tu quoque, because I have the fortune particularly to like the noble Duke's methods. There is something so stimulating in the incisiveness of the manner in which he presents his opinions that I find him wholly attractive, and, therefore, I am excluded from the obvious retort of tu quoque.
I pass to more serious matters, to the main and the only issue which engages our discussions to-night. I find myself here in almost entire agreement with the views stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Long; and nothing, indeed, has seemed to me in the course of these discussions more astounding than that those who, like Lord Selborne, still adhere to the view which the late Government, this Government and Parliament have abandoned—nothing has appeared more amazing than that those who still cling like Lord Selborne to the view which hardly anybody else at this moment embraces, wholly

141
fail to meet the challenge to which they were subjected in the last Parliament over and over again, and to which, equally, they are subjected in this Parliament. What was, and what is, their alternative? Was there any alternative? Is there any alternative, except that of the reconquest of Ireland? I am not going to dispute with my noble friend, Lord Long, with whom I thoroughly agree, as to whether the numbers of men required would be 100,000 or 200,000. I will only affirm this, that we had the advice of the Imperial Staff for the conclusion which I have frequently stated to the House, and for the estimates of the numbers of men which I have put forward. But, after we have reconquered them, we still have to come to sonic settlement.
Does the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, believe that we could go back to the old Salisbury tradition of twenty years of resolute Government? There was only one thing wrong with that prescription. It had great merit. The only thing wrong with it was that the democratic development of this country did not afford the slightest prospect of obtaining twenty years of resolute Government; and if we are all agreed, as every person who has studied the history of English politics for the last thirty years must be agreed, that there was no prospect of obtaining continuous power for twenty years in which you could carry out resolute government, then that particular prescription ceases to exist.
What is the alternative? What is the substitute? There is none. None has been suggested; none can be suggested. The only possible course was to see whether or not an accommodation could be secured which was worth trying and which did not carry within itself the seeds of the dissolution, or it might be the destruction, of this Empire. Opinions will differ, opinions have differed, but I for one am convinced that this settlement will not endanger any vital interests of the British Empire. When the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, talks to us of the risks of an Irish Navy and an Irish tariff, I marvel that one so experienced can discuss these matters with so little sense of proportion. It was once said in satirically comparing the merits of two statesmen, "Pitt is to Addington as Addington is to Paddington." By the names of what railway stations shall we try to make plain the contrast
142
in resources, in strength, in men, between Ireland and this country? What is the danger in the eyes of any rational and balanced mind of Ireland beginning the germs of a Navy which could not be destroyed in half an hour by the superior might of this country?
Equally chimerical, I believe, are the apprehensions which are based upon tariffs. The position to-day is this; that we are in an overwhelming scale the largest customer which Ireland possesses. We are not only actually so, but there is no other customer which can compete with us. Consider the overwhelming force of the economic argument that we are in a position at any moment to apply to the Irish nation if their tariff methods were unfair to the commerce of this country. We can say, "Ninety per cent, of what you produce and what you export are consumed in this country. You cannot afford to offend not only the greatest customer you have but the only possible customer, having regard to the fact that seventy-four per cent. of your exports are perishable commodities." Therefore, we need not trouble unduly about these particular apprehensions.
I am, I confess, still less alarmed by the analysis which the noble Earl applied to the figures I gave a few nights ago showing that eighty per cent. of the Irish constituents voted for the Treaty. The noble Earl asks: What did they vote for? As between what issues was the vote given?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not say that. I asked in what sense did they vote.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: If we ask in what sense did they vote we mean in what form did the issue on which they voted present itself to their mind? That does not seem to me to be a very illuminating distinction, but I will answer both questions. In the first place two direct alternatives were presented to them. The first alternative was that they should support the cause of those who rejected the Treaty and pledged themselves to carry through, if they could, an Irish Republic. Is it a small thing that, on an issue placed before the Irish constituencies, in which the whole forces of coercion so far as coercion was applied was used on the side of the Republic, eighty per cent. of those voting should have voted in favour of the Treaty? When the noble Earl corrects

143
me and says that the real question was in what sense did they vote, I say that it is never a useful process to push too far an analysis as to the sense in which any constituency or any country votes. It is an invariable phenomenon in our domestic politics here that the defeated Party immediately institutes an inquiry as to the sense in which those who have defeated them have voted.
The noble Earl also says that two Ministers have announced that the Treaty can be denounced at any moment by the Irish Government, and asks me whether that is my view. In constitutional theory it is undoubtedly true that it can be denounced. It is undoubtedly true, in constitutional theory, that with the assent, not without the assent, of the contracting parties such a step might be taken. Take the case, say, of the Dominion of Canada. Mr. Bonar Law made an observation some years ago in the House of Commons in which he said that any one of the self-governing Dominions was at liberty at any moment to resign from the Imperial connection. I do not, as a matter of constitutional theory, accept that view; nor does any one else. But what Mr. Bonar Law meant was that it was extremely unlikely, if the predominant view in any of the great self-governing Dominions was that they no longer desired to form part of the British. Empire, that any responsible British Government would resort to arms to conquer them. That is the true position. The constitutional position is that no part. of the British Empire, except by force of arms, could possibly extricate itself, or remove itself, from the British Empire.
But no one can ever prevent any one who makes a Treaty from breaking it, subject to this one contingency, that those at whose expense it is broken have the remedy in their own hands if they are strong enough. If it were the general view among those who are and will be responsible for the Government of Ireland that they would, in a partitionist spirit and at a particular selected moment, tear up this Treaty, as other Treaties have been torn up, the position would be the same as was open to us two years ago, to decide whether or not, on this provocation, we should then address ourselves in the interests of our own safety and the Imperial position to the reconquest of Ireland. I do not believe that the views
144
referred to by the noble Earl are characteristic of the views held by the Provisional Government taken as a whole.
I cannot help noticing, as most of your Lordships have noticed, the poignant and anxious circumstances in which these Ministers are discharging their duties to-day. Your Lordships will remember that in one of Scott's romances there is an heroic story of six brothers who guarded in desperate combat the life of their youngest and foster brother. One fell, and the corpses lying upon corpses checked those who would have destroyed him. Those who to-day take upon themselves the burden of government in Ireland, those who are standing for this Treaty in Ireland, are not merely exposing themselves, as we in England expose ourselves, to misunderstanding and taunts and hostility. There is not one of them who, from day to day and hour to hour, does not carry his life in his hands. I draw the brightest augury for the future in this circumstance: that when they are quarrelling with their own old comrades, when they are quarrelling with men by whose side they have risked death over and over again in the days of the struggle with us, they have never faltered and never hesitated, and, by a supreme assertion of moral courage, they have not hesitated, when they thought that the supreme interest of their country required it, to assume the awful function of the executioner at the behest of a Military Court.
I am not one of those who ever did, with facile optimism, predict that success in the difficult policy we adopted would be swift or easy. The road which we must travel is long and arduous; it may still be bloody; but long and arduous and bloody as it may be, we must still tread it, for it is the only road which is illumined by the golden light of hope.
LORD SUMNER: My Lords, may I venture to recall to the attention of the House what I conceive to be the real issue, and the only issue, that is before the House on this occasion. It is one which has only been touched upon once or twice, and then only in the most distant and indifferent way. It is the question whether or not this Constitution, as framed and as presented to your Lordships in this Bill, is or is not in accordance with what is called the Treaty. It is, of course, only natural that those who feel deeply about Ireland should have spent some considerable time

145
in surveying the past and prognosticating the future, and this for more reasons than one. First of all, the legal question is 80 dry and so uninteresting that I can quite understand that noble Lords who have hitherto spoken are only too glad to leave it to the lawyers; and the other reason is that I think it is quite safe to say that this is the last occasion upon which we shall discuss in this House t he affairs of Ireland, in the sense in which they have been discussed for the last five and thirty years.
Let us hope that we may not have occasion to discuss them again, because the next time they conic up for serious discussion in this House it will necessarily-be on account of issues much more grave than any of those that have been before us so far. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Wimborne, said that this was an experiment. The Treaty was thought an experiment about twelve months ago. It is nothing of the kind. I think it is vital that people should get it well into their heads that, whatever may happen after this change takes place, this instrument is not an experiment that you can recall. It is done for good or for evil, once and for all. When this Bill leaves your Lordships' House, you have had your last word to say to the Constitution of Ireland, and England has gone as far as England can go. If the question comes here again, it will come here in a far more terrible form.
I do not propose for one moment to follow previous speakers into the question of how we come to be in the situation in which we find ourselves. I do not propose to go over the past, but if there is any good to be got out of what has happened, it is that we may now for sonic years to come hope to forget the policy or the changes of policy which have from time to time had to be pursued in Ireland. Whatever else we may lose or gain, at any rate Parliamentary discussion for some years to come will not be perpetually turned upside down by the intrusion of Southern Irish affairs. For more than a generation, since the beginning of the time when I first began to take any interest m politics, at intervals sometimes longer but generally shorter, some Irish question arose upon which Parliament was bored or exasperated, was torn asunder or paralysed. This Bill carries out Articles of Agreement, the so-called Treaty, which at any rate put an end to that.
It is just as unprofitable to review the past and to try to fix blame upon one side
146
or another side as it is to indulge in prophecies about the future, as to which I do not think anything more safe can be said than that no eye can pierce it. Some paint rosy pictures; sonic count upon a passionate loyalty growing up; some look forward to the exchange of commodities of a perishable character on such a scale that Ireland will be bound to us by ties of interest, if not of affection. Others look forward to further bloodshed and disorder. Sympathy is extended to a body of gentlemen who, I do not doubt, are much in need of it, the present Government of Ireland. Does that carry us any further? I think personally that one had better wait and deal with the next crisis when it arises. I do not think we shall render any assistance to the present Government of Ireland by pointing out the extremely critical state of their affairs.
The one question is whether it is safe to pass this Bill, which makes of this Irish Constitution an Imperial Statute, as being in conformity with the Treaty, which, as an instrument, was given the force of law after being ratified by both Houses, which is binding upon us, and which, without any hesitation, every speaker in all parts of the House agrees that it is our duty to carry out. On an occasion like this it has obviously been a supreme comfort to His Majesty's Government that they could lay the matter before their legal advisers and there leave it.
I think they were probably well advised; doubly well advised, if I may say so, because they were well advised in resorting to their legal advisers, and they have as their legal advisers such a body as ensured that the advice given should be of the best. I think it is a good fortune to have received, or to expect to receive, the opinions not only of the last Lord Chancellor and the present Lord Chancellor, but to have the opportunity of reading in the OFFICIAL REPORT the exposition of the Attorney-General, to whom we may confidently look forward as a future Lord Chancellor. I think your Lordships and the Government are to be congratulated, as I certainly congratulate myself, upon the fact that, in a matter of so much difficulty, and upon which it is easy to feel so much doubt, we have the benefit of the presence on the Woolsack of my noble friend, Lord Cave, in whose calm judgment, wide experience both of the law and of statesmanship, and strict and undoubted

147
devotion to the interests of his country, we can all of us repose the utmost confidence.
I do not know whether I have appreciated the reasoning upon which the Government have been advised that this Bill is in conformity with the Treaty, but I take it that it rests principally upon the fact that, at the very outset of the instrument, it is provided that
"if any provision of the said Constitution—"
that is, what we are going to pass—
"or of any Amendment thereof….is in any respect repugnant to any of the provisions of the Scheduled Treaty, it shall, to the extent only of such repugnancy, be absolutely void and inoperative."
I confess that I find this a little puzzling as a matter of draftsmanship. Conceive a Bill to enact a wholesome system of arithmetic, the first Article of which proceeds to say that "Two and two shall make five," and the second Article that "Three times three shall be nineteen: Provided always that, if any Article of this Code shall be in conflict with the Multiplication Table, then to the extent of such repugnancy the same shall be inoperative and null and void."
This is an Irish measure, and I do not say that it is not as good a way of doing it as is possible in the circumstances. I believe that to be in itself an effective way of doing it, because if for political reasons those who draft a Constitution are compelled to import into it a number of Articles which either do not mean what they say or, if they do mean what they say, have been inserted by people singularly little acquainted with ordinary legal terms—if it is necessary to frame your Constitution in that way, the safest thing is to say that the standard is to be, after all, the Treaty, and that anything which does not agree with that standard is wrong. To that extent I imagine that those who advised the Government have come to the conclusion that there is safety in the proviso t hat nothing shall stand which goes beyond the Treaty. Then you safeguard the Treaty and make your Constitution in accordance with the Treaty. If that is so, it will be a consolation to me if the Lord Chancellor can give us that assurance, because if this Dominion status—which although not written is perfectly wellunderstood—is preserved and is to be preserved hereafter, I do not think the difficulties that will arise in connection with the vagueness or peculiarity of some of these Articles will much affect this country.
148
I think it is very much to be regretted that it is necessary to import into the Constitution Articles which must be a disappointment to those who have received them in a sense differing from that which is understood by those who stand upon the Treaty and Dominion status. It is all very well to speak of citizenship of the Irish Free State, but the people of Southern Ireland remain His Majesty's subjects, and nothing in this Constitution can alter that. The powers of the Irish Legislature, legislative, executive and judicial, and the powers of the Government, whether derived from the people in some sense of the word or not, are at any rate derived from the Imperial Statute, which in its turn conforms to the Treaty. But I trust that the disappointment which may arise front some of these theoretical Articles proving to mean less than they are supposed to mean, may not be of any real practical importance.
In the same way there are a number of Articles which are introduced, apparently, merely for the sake of saying what is obvious, and I should have thought that there was a danger of vain hopes being derived from them. I do not think, however, that anything is to be gained now by examining the Articles one by one and by asking questions as to whether this or that particular Article may not make it possible for this, that, or the other peculiar thing to happen. I do not think there is very much use in asking whether or not this Article or that Article may be misused. I do not think very much advantage will be gained by inquiring whether, in a particular degree, the Dominion status can be made to square with what is claimed in this or that Constitution, because to point these things out and discuss them now is either to suggest them to people who have not thought of them before, or it is to exasperate persons who at present attach great importance to something quite different and who, let us hope, after a time will settle down to more serious business and try to keep the peace.
Therefore, I do not press my noble and learned friend to elucidate different portions of the Constitution which have undoubtedly created a great deal of disquiet among those who have followed it closely, but if he is able to assure your Lordships that in his opinion, and in the opinions of the legal advisers who have assisted the Government, the overhead clause, proviso,

149
and reservations make the thing as safe as legal phraseology can do, then I personally see no reason why your Lordships should have any misgivings or anxiety in giving effect to the Constitution by acquiescing in the passing of this Statute. What anxiety there may be as to its working is another matter; what fears there may be as to those who may be the victims of the way in which it may be applied is another matter; but I do not think that now is the time for dealing with those things, and if we receive an assurance, so far as I am concerned I shall entirely acquiesce in the Second Reading of the Bill and shall hope for the best.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I confess that when I heard the speeches of the noble Duke and of the noble Marquess who acts as Deputy Leader of the House, so far as the subject of the Irish loyalists is concerned, I regretted more the words they did not say than the words they did say, because it appeared to me that the policy of His Majesty's Government, whether unavoidable or not, is to abandon the Southern loyalists to their fate. I am not venturing to criticise. I only think it right that your Lordships should realise what the state of affairs probably will be. I venture to preface the few remarks which I am going to make with the hope that you will not think I am speaking from a personal bias—because some years ago I severed my connection with the country.
The subject of the Southern loyalists has been touched upon already far more ably than I can do it, but I think their future is so black that the subject cannot he mentioned too often, and I should not air these pessimistic opinions unless I thought there was proof that the theories held for so long and by so many people resident in Ireland had not received necessary attention. When I lived in Ireland I made every inquiry I could and I came to the strong conviction that the dominant feeling of most Irishmen outside the Six Counties towards England, and anything to do with the English or the English Government, was a fierce and vindictive hatred. I do not know that that would be very material now, but we must remember that always the Southern loyalists have been regarded by the remainder of their countrymen as the English garrison, and, being so regarded, they have earned the hatred which is held for England.
150
You are handing them over now to their hitter enemies—because I still maintain that they are their bitter enemies—under a Constitution based upon the widest franchise that has ever been given in the British Empire. I cannot, say for what reason this hatred of England and the English has come about. The reason may lie in the history that has been taught in the schools, or in the stories handed down from father to son and from mother to daughter front tune immemorial; but fear that that dislike and hatred remain. And, what is worse, the Southern Irishmen have always looked upon the Southern loyalists as being mete for spoliation when their time came, and many of them have always regarded the Southern loyalists as instruments of vengeance ready to their hand.
I know it is held by some people with whom I have discussed the matter that, should any unfair treatment be meted out to these poor people, England still holds the purse-strings, and will hold them for some time, and that she can put an end to all the supplies, if necessary, in order to stop such unfair legislation. I cannot share that hopeful view. Should the English Government interfere or criticise any legislation passed by the Irish Government, all that the Irish Government have to do in retaliation is to say, "Very well, we will resign; come over and govern us again." And I have no illusion as to what will be the answer of His Majesty's Government in those circumstances.
I should like to call the particular attention of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to another point in the hope that he may be able to dispel the uncertainty which exists. Under the Constitution it is laid down that certain people become Irish citizens automatically. But the choice remains to those who are citizens of another State to escape from or renounce that liability. That phrase "citizens of another State" is, I believe, unknown to the law, or at any rate the definition of such citizens is uncertain. Several high legal luminaries have been consulted as to whether the phrase covers any British subject who is a member of the Irish community, or whether it only applies to those individuals resident in Ireland who are aliens, such as Swiss, Germans, Frenchmen, Italians, and so on. It is a matter of great moment to many people in Ireland now to know whether

151
this choice is open to them, or whether it is left to be determined by a still further provision in the Bill, to the effect that such legislation will be passed by the Free State Government in the future to determine on what terms and under what conditions people may either undertake Irish citizenship or renounce it.
I will give an instance to show why so many people are anxious for information on this point. There are many British officers and soldiers living in Ireland who served during the recent war and during previous campaigns. There is no doubt that, whether or not it is put into effect, the power is in the hands of the Irish Free State to bring about compulsory military service, and rumours are very strong that the Irish Government do so intend very soon after the passing of this measure. At any time these British officers and soldiers may have to serve with the Free State Army. I am not going to rake up anything from the past. This is no time to create ill-feeling, whatever one's own sentiments may be. But when we recall the tremendous incidents of the last two years I would say that the methods of war of the Sinn Fein Army are not the methods of the British Army, and that the officers and men who have served in the British Army have no ambition to serve in the Sinn Fein Army. Only yesterday I met a man who had served the King in three campaigns, and he had left Ireland and everything behind him, determined to go to the uttermost parts of the earth rather than be compelled to serve in that Army. It is only natural to hope that anyone who is at this moment a British subject and yet lives in Ireland may be able to choose the nationality that he prefers.
I cannot share in the optimism which has been expressed by so many people about the success of this Bill. We remember the foundations on which this measure has been raised; we remember the methods by which it has been built up; and we know the storms of disunity, anarchy and Bolshevism which have raged in Ireland. I fail to see how a house so erected can stand. We all hope that it will stand and prove a success, but again I submit to your Lordships that at least those who have had no part in its planning, those who have lent no hand to its building, should not be forced to live in an edifice of which they do not approve.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I have no desire whatever to criticise the Irish Constitution, either from a legal or any other point of view, but I should like to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Midleton, to this extent, that I greatly regret the very limited powers, even of suspension, that are entrusted to the Senate. I regret it, not because I am fearful of wild-cat legislation, but because the Constitution is, for all practical purposes, based on a Single-Chamber system and on the widest possible franchise, and I think that a more balanced Constitution would have been of more use to Ireland in establishing her credit. As to the protection of minorities, I think that the terms of the Constitution have done all that was possible in that direction. Minorities, of course, can be persecuted by many means which cannot be guarded against by any Senate; but I am confident that if the minorities in the North are not bullied and persecuted the minority in the South need be under no apprehension whatever that they will be ill-treated.
I wish to occupy the attention of the House for a very few moments only. It seems to me, after all, that when there is no alternative before the House the making of speeches is rather a matter of vanity and vexation of spirit. All I want to say is a word or two lest my silence might be assumed to mean that, owing to the conditions existing in Ireland, I had found reason to change the opinion I expressed in this House a year ago that this whole policy would result in putting an end to what has been called the Irish Question, and that Ireland would take her place among the other Dominions in friendly relation with Great Britain. The conditions in Ireland are most deplorable. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne dealt with them at some length on Tuesday last and my noble friend Lord Midleton alluded to them to-day. The matter is not disputed. Nobody can deny, or can attempt to deny, the facts. Nobody can attempt to mitigate the terms of the judgment that must be pronounced against them. All that is known. But the use of those conditions in argument seems to me to infer that they are used with the object of asking this House not to pass the Bill or, if that is impossible, as of course it is, to ask the House at any rate to pass the Bill under protest. I hope that will not be the decision of the House.

153
To justify the view that I hold it would be necessary for me, of course, to go at length and in detail into the whole state of affairs in Ireland, into all the difficulties the Provisional Government have had to meet; and that I am not going to attempt to do. The House, I think, admits that the Provisional Government have met with difficulties of an unparalleled character, that no men entrusted with government have ever had to face difficulties so great. The real question is: What progress have the Provisional Government made in overcoming those difficulties? To my mind the point is not that the Provisional Government have not made much progress, but that they have been able to make any progress at all. Progress they have made, and very considerable progress.
I would ask your Lordships to remember that up to the present the Government in Ireland has been provisional only, that it has been open to any one and easy for any One, obsessed with misdoubt, of England and the British Parliament, to argue that at long last it would be found that all the powers supposed to have been given in the Treaty had been withheld somehow or another and that the British Parliament and the British people could not be trusted. With the passage of these Bills and the establishment of the Free State, that, attitude will be at an end. The thing will be done, it will be accomplished, and in its accomplishment the Government of Ireland will receive a great accession of moral strength. That accession of moral strength will react upon the people and the Government will receive a very much larger amount of moral support from the people.
Surveying the whole situation and the gigantic difficulties which the Provisional Government have had to encounter, I think that they deserve our sympathy and all the assistance that can possibly be given them. When I had the honour of seconding the Address in this House two years ago I asked for patience. I put in that plea now. Have patience with the Free State. Give it time. The fate, and, more than the fate, the existence of Ireland is at stake. History has proved over and over again that Ireland cannot be killed, but Ireland can kill herself, and if the Free State, to use a common expression, does not "make good," if this great experiment turns out to be a failure, Ireland will be dead. That is known and recog-
154
nised, I believe, by the people in Ireland.. I am sure it is known and recognised by the Government in Ireland. They not only think it and know it, but they are acting upon it with courage, energy, and determination.
I cannot argue the case, and all I can really say is this, that viewing the whole situation to the best of my ability I see no logical reason whatever for despondency, much less for despair. Your Lordships will pass these Bills, of course, and I hope that you will not pass them merely as a matter of dire necessity. This is a great constitutional experiment. The whole policy is an experiment. In any experiment there must, of course, he an element of doubt, and I trust that in passing these Bills your Lordships will not pass them under the conviction that you are making an experiment which is bound or is even likely to end in failure.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, it is, to say the least of it, a curious coincidence that some of those who were most opposed to the Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, and who prophesied for it the most dire results, should find themselves obliged by force of circumstances to introduce and to pass through your Lordships' House the measure which gives the final sanction of Parliament to that arrangement; and this in such a manner that it is almost impossible for your Lordships to examine or to consider properly a Bill which concerns in such an important degree the future of Ireland and is also of vast importance to this country as furnishing a probable precedent for future legislation, should any take place, for self-government in Scotland, or Wales, or any other subject that may be necessary to re-establish the Heptarchy.
Whenever I speak in this House on the subject of Ireland I feel, like the writer of a serial story in a daily paper, that I ought to preface my remarks by a synopsis of the preceding chapter. It may be said that this is going back on past history, but it is necessary to do so in order that I may elaborate the argument by which I wish to persuade your Lordships of the course which I think ought to be taken with regard to this Bill. So many people in this country are now accustomed to the state of unrest which prevails in Ireland that they look upon it as the normal condition of that

155
country, and they are apt to forget that not so long ago, under a Unionist Government, Ireland was as peaceful, as prosperous, and as progressive as any portion of the United Kingdom. The chief blame for the state of affairs which now exists lies, without doubt, on the shoulders of His Majesty's late Government. I would wish to emphasise this fact, because they were very much inclined, if they could, to transfer the blame elsewhere, and more especially to those Irish Unionists who, in 1917, at the call of high patriotism, at a moment they believed to be one of great peril to the Empire, threw aside the convictions of a lifetime in order to try to effect a settlement of the Irish Question. The late Government were very fond of saying that it was owing to the recommendations of those Unionists, and in order to save their lives and their property, that they entered into the arrangement which led up to the Treaty. No statement can be more incorrect. It is principally because the late Government omitted to consult those Irish Unionists except in matters of detail, and, when they did consult them, generally neglected to follow their advice, that the present state of affairs exists.
I remember hearing a story in my youth of a distinguished lady in Ireland who liked to have the windows and doors in her house always open, with the result that many of her guests suffered from colds, if not from more serious complaints; and if one of those guests, with streaming eyes and nose, complained to this distinguished lady of the draughts prevalent everywhere, he received the reply: "The Countess loves the atmosphere." I think His Majesty's late Government were rather like the Countess; they loved to create an atmosphere, and the atmsophere varied, as suited their convenience, from one of the sternest repression to one of abject surrender to crime. So long ago as 1917, before the Irish Convention, in spite of the protests of Irish Unionists, and in spite, I believe, of a promise which was given by a member of the Government, they decided, in order to create an atmosphere, to release all the Sinn Fein prisoners who were in gaol in England. The result was that they seriously jeopardised at the start any chances of success for the Convention. The following year they wished to change the atmosphere, and at the very moment when they had decided and announced that they intended to confer upon Ireland a liberal measure of self-government, they
156
proceeded to enact a measure for enforcing conscription in that country. That was in order to create an atmosphere favour-able to induce labour to agree to an extension of the age for compulsory service over here.
Last year, as we all know, Mr. Lloyd George thought he had found a man who could deliver the goods, and he told us, as a result of the Treaty, that Ireland was overflowing with passionate loyalty to the King and the Empire. He soon found reason to modify his opinion. Then he wished again to create an atmosphere, and, in order to further the cause which he had in view, he invoked the principle of self-determination, and, in order to carry out that principle of self-determination, he denuded the whole of Ireland of troops with the exception of Dublin and Cork, and disbanded the Royal Irish Constabulary. Has any other instance been known in history of a Government which removed all the forces that maintain law and order without seeing that there was some other force to replace them, and to carry out the government of the country? I do not know of any other instance. I think of what happened with regard to Silesia and Schleswig-Holstein, but in those cases, instead of withdrawing the troops when a plebiscite was to be taken, further troops were sent into the country, so that law and order could be maintained till the questions at issue had been decided and a new administration set up.
But, as we all know, the question of self-determination is one to which statesmen pay lip service only; otherwise, why should it be highly praiseworthy to have self-determination in favour of the Free State, and most reprehensible to have it in favour of a Republic? In those circumstances the Provisional Government took charge of the country, and naturally they found it impossible to enforce law and order. Whether they wished it or not they found themselves obliged to come to an agreement with those who advocated the immediate establishment of a Republic with the result that the Election which took place was really a coupon election in which members were returned who were recommended either by Mr. de Valera or the late Mr. Griffith. It was impossible for any Unionist to hope to be returned to that Parliament. We had a Parliament consisting absolutely of those who were nominated by one of the two gentlemen I

157
have named. In those circumstances it was, of course, impossible for Unionist views to be put forward.
I will ask your Lordships to consider now, very briefly, what were the pledges given with regard to this matter to the Unionists, and also, what is the Constitution as it now stands? I would not elaborate the question of the safeguards promised to Unionists, because that has already been done at length by my noble friend Lord Midleton. I would merely say that after the Treaty was signed it was found that there were no safeguards contained in that document. We were told that we must rely on a letter which was written by the late Mr. Arthur Griffith to the Prime Minister. Soon after that the Free State (Agreement) Bill came before your Lordships' House, and at that time I ventured to propose an Amendment by which, instead of the Constituent Assembly consisting only of one House—the House of Commons, elected under the Act of 1920—it should consist also of the Senate, which was then, and is now, in existence. If this had been done it would have been possible for Unionists in Ireland to put forward their views, which would have had a chance of being heard and considered by the Lower Chamber in Dublin. But this was not done. Although I obtained considerable support in your Lordships' House, there was a majority against it; therefore, we have no representation.
Instead of that, after the Provisional Government had settled on the draft of the proposed Constitution, it was submitted to His Majesty's Government, and they invited certain representatives of the Unionist Party to meet the representatives of Sinn Fein to consider the Constitution of the two Houses and their respective powers. When those meetings had taken place, and, while the Constitution was being considered by the Dail, Mr. Cosgrave stated on several occasions that he was bound to insert certain provisions because they were the result of an agreement which had been come to between him and the Irish Unionists. Several of my noble friends in this House can correct me if I am wrong, but I think Mr. Cosgrave was mistaken in stating that. I am certain that he said so in perfect good faith, but I think what he meant was that he was bound to carry out the undertaking which he had given to those Irish Unionists, because, it
158
will be remembered by your Lordships, after discussions took place last July my noble friend Lord Midleton and several other gentlemen wrote to the then Colonial Secretary a letter that appeared in the public Press, in which they stated that although they had met with much courtesy on the part of the representatives of the Provisional Government, they had not been able to secure what they regarded as sufficient safeguards for the Southern Unionists.
This is the last occasion on which any protest can be raised with regard to the position of Southern Unionists in the country, or on which any measures can be taken to remedy that position by changes in the Bill. I am perfectly well aware that it is said that it is impossible to make changes in the Bill, for two reasons. In the first place, because it must pass into law by December 6. That argument does not carry much conviction, because I remember that for two months last spring the Provisional Government sat without any legal powers. That was rectified by an Act of Indemnity, and I cannot see why a similar course should not be taken now instead of our being asked to pass this Bill at lightning speed. The other reason given is that the Constitution, as it stands, is within the terms of the Treaty, and, therefore, must not be changed by a single comma.
As Irish Unionists have had no opportunity of expressing their views I cannot see why they should not take this opportunity, if they are able to convince your Lordships, of inserting Amendments in the Bill. I do not say that your Lordships should insist upon those Amendments if it is found that the Dail will not accept them, but it is a reasonable proposition to say that Amendments should be inserted and submitted to the Dail, and if this was done some at least if not all of the Amendments might be accepted by the Irish Chamber.
May I say a few words on the subject of the Constitution itself. Mr. Arthur Griffith, in a letter which he addressed to the late Prime Minister, said—
"At a meeting I held with the representatives of the Southern Unionists, I agreed that a scheme should be devised to give them their full share of representation in the First Chamber of the Irish Parliament, and that as to the Upper Chamber we will consult them on its constitution, and undertake that their interests will be duly represented. I wish also to take the occasion to say that we

159
desire to secure the willing co-operation of Unionists in common with all other sections of the Irish nation, in raising the structure and shaping the destiny of the Irish Free State. We look for their assistance in the same spirit of understanding and good will which we ourselves will show towards their traditions and interests."
I draw your Lordships' particular attention to the last phrase: "their traditions and interests." What are the traditions and interests of Irish Unionists? Our traditions make us think of a Kingdom which has gone back for centuries and a Constitution which consists of King, Lords and Commons. We are here offered a Constitution which is more than a half-way house towards an Irish Republic.
There are one or two provisions in the Constitution on which I should like to make some criticism and also ask questions. Article 3 deals with citizenship. That question has been asked in the House of Commons and a satisfactory reply received, but it would be a satisfaction to many of your Lordships if a reply could also be given in this House confirming what I believe has been said in the Commons—namely, that nothing in this Bill will affect the status of any Irish citizen as a British subject. But I should like to ask two questions in order to make it absolutely clear. Will any Irish citizen in the future he able to go to the Foreign Office and demand, as a British subject, to have his passport? And can any Peer of Parliament in Ireland who is guilty of felony against the Irish Free State—which I hope is not likely to happen—demand the right to be tried by his Peers over here?
I also desire some information with regard to Article 5 which says—
"No title of honour in respect of any services rendered in or in relation to the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) may be conferred on any citizen of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) except with the approval or upon the advice of the Executive Council of the State."
We all know that His Majesty acts as a constitutional Sovereign on the advice of His Ministers, and I should like to ask whether this is not a direct interference with His Majesty's Prerogative as the "fountain of honour," and if this Bill ought not to be accompanied by a Message from the Sovereign signifying that he has assented to this change. In the case of Bills affecting the Duchy of Lancaster it has always been stated that His Majesty's assent has been given to the change; and this is a much more serious interference with the Royal Prerogative than
160
anything which could possibly appear in a Bill affecting the Duchy.
I had intended to say something on the two Houses of Parliament, the Chamber and the Senate, but that point has been well made by the Earl of Midleton, and it is unnecessary for me to dwell upon it. He pointed out how very small is the power granted to the Second Chamber and how useless the Referendum would be in case the Lower House insisted upon carrying legislation, after the necessary interval, over their heads. The time is so short that the chief object of a Referendum, which is to appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober, would not be obtained. I have taken the trouble to go through the Constitutions which have been granted to the various Dominions and I do not find one single instance of a Senate which has such limited powers as those conferred on the Senate under this Bill. In fact, in most of the Constitutions granted the Senate has larger powers even than your Lordships' House.
The matter would be very different if we had been able to make such a change in the Senate as would have enabled them to hold up a Bill for two years, as was proposed in the Bill of 1920, and given them a chance of having a joint sitting with the Lower House in case of Money Bills, with a decision come to by a majority of both Houses sitting together. As it is it appears to me that the Senate is merely camouflage, which may deceive the public in this country and the Colonies, but for all practical purposes Ireland will be governed as a Single-Chamber State.
I do not wish to close on a pessimistic note. I shall be only too glad if my forebodings and fears turn out to be untrue. I heartily wish the Provisional Government success in their efforts to restore law and order. I firmly believe that Mr. Cosgrave, personally, is actuated by a feeling of fair play towards all His Majesty's subjects in Southern Ireland. But Ministries come and go, while Constitutions remain, and if the Constitution is a bad one, I fear that there will be little chance under it of a peaceful and progressive Ireland. The best chance for Ireland is that during the next few years it may be possible to persuade our fellow countrymen in the North that they could safely join their destinies to ours, but they will never do that if any section of Irishmen in the South is treated unfairly. Ulster is loyal, and if she ever joins the rest of

161
Ireland I feel convinced that she will do so, not under a modified Republic, but under a revised Constitution and in a reconstituted Kingdom of Ireland.
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, there is one small but important matter to which I should be glad if I might call your Lordships' attention for two minutes before the debate closes. Perhaps it is a point which should be brought forward on the Committee stage of the Bill, but I am doubtful whether there will be a Committee stage at all, except of a very formal kind. The question with which I am concerned has already been referred to in this debate. There is so much hurry in the whole matter that I gather that any point which one brings before the House with the request for an answer from the Government ought to be raised as soon as possible.
I wish to refer to the question of the civil servants in Ireland, and the security for the pensions and compensation that should be awarded to them. It is a very important matter to them. I think it is also import-ant to the good faith and good name of this country and this Government that they should behave fairly towards this body of men. Let me briefly draw attention to Article 10 of the Treaty, which says—
"The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to Judges, officials, members of police forces and other public servants who are discharged by it or retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance hereof:"
That is one of the Articles of the Treaty, and when it Came before the House last year we moved an Amendment giving statutory force to the guarantee which the Government has verbally given to these civil servants that their interests should be looked after. We then laid our case before the House, and pointed out that these civil servants are your servants. It was you who employed them, and not the Irish Free State; it was you whom they faithfully served amidst difficulties and dangers.
When we made that case in this House—it was presented by my noble friend, Lord Dufferin, and others—the House agreed to the Amendment, by which statutory force was given to the verbal guarantee which had already been made to these men. I hope that the Government, by some means or other, will meet my demand. It would
162
be perfectly possible to do so in the Consequential Provisions Bill. That Amendment went down to the House of Commons and the House of Commons declared, quite rightly, that it was an infringement of privilege, and consequently it was ruled out of order. II the Government had wished to support the Amendment, that difficulty could have been surmounted, but, as a matter of fact, the Government did not support it, and the Amendment-which we had carried in this House was thrown out. Civil servants in Ireland, therefore, depend on that clause in Article 10 of the Treaty, which is not referred to in the Constitution at all.
What answer was given in this House, when we moved that Amendment, by the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, who was then in charge of the Bill? His answer, which I read from the OFFICAL REPORT, was as follows—
"The position is that, in the first place, the obligation of paying these pensions, retiring allowances and so on, falls upon the Government of the Free State. That being so under the terms of the Treaty, why is it to be assumed that these duties are going to be neglected?"
He said further that the Amendment would be a suggestion to the Irish Government that they were not going to discharge their duty and fulfil their trust. He added that the Free State Government might say—
"'We are so little trusted as to the payment of these funds that the statutory duty of paying them is put upon the British Government.'"
His position was that we should be insulting or mistrusting the Free State Government if the British Government stood by its own old servants.
Let me draw your Lordships attention to the Article of the Treaty. It applies not only to civil servants, but to the Judges, to the police and to other officials. What has happened Since? The Government have changed the Article of the Treaty to the extent of removing the Judges from it, they have brought in this Consequential Provisions Bill by which the Judges, the police and the Land Commission have been removed; and the only people left under that Article are the, civil servants. Was it an insult to the Free State Government to remove the judges? How did you get over that? How did the Government get over the insult of removing the Land Commissioners and the Police? If you can get over one insult you can get

163
over another, but I do not believe that it would be an insult to the Free State Government to stand by the civil servants. I do not look at the matter in that light at all. I am not mistrusting the Free State Government, and I do not believe that they will look upon it as mistrust.
On the contrary, I believe they consider it a mean thing on the part of the British Government to treat their civil servants in this way. These men are not the servants of the Irish Free State. The Free State Government are discharging them and saying, "We do not want anything more to do with you; you may have served your own Government well, but you have not served us, and we have finished with you." This claim also applies to men who do not wish to live under the new régime. But these men are your servants, and I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that some clause should be introduced into the Consequential Provisions Bill, analogous if not exactly similar to the Amendment which this House approved, giving statutory force to the guarantee of the British Government to these old servants who have served it so faithfully.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, some time has elapsed and a good many speeches have been made since the Second Reading of this Bill was moved by the noble Duke, and I think it may be the wish of the House that I should now endeavour to reply on behalf of the Government to such of the points raised as admit of reply. A considerable part of the afternoon has been occupied in discussing wide questions of policy, whether it was wise and expedient to enter into the so-called Treaty, and whether it is likely that it will be followed by success or by failure. It is, of course, quite natural, I think it was unavoidable, that such questions should be raised and debated on the Second Reading of the Bill, but I think I should not be making the best use of the time at my disposal if I were to go into those wider questions.
It is enough for me to say, first, that I share with every speaker the views which have been expressed, that this country is bound in honour, whatever our individual opinions may be, to give effect to the Treaty entered into on its behalf and ratified by Parliament; secondly, that I, in common with my colleagues, shall certainly
164
do my best to give effect to the Treaty, not only in the letter but in the spirit; and, thirdly, that I hope with all my heart that the fears expressed by some speakers this afternoon may be falsified, and that in time better days may come for Ireland.
Having said so much I pass on to deal with the points made by noble Lords who have spoken. Lord Midleton, in a moving and statesmanlike speech, referred to the position of the loyalists in the South of Ireland. He complained, and I am not surprised, at the short time that is available for the discussion of these Bills, and of the difficulty, which is undoubted, of proposing any change in the Constitution in the Schedule. What he says is, of course, quite true, but I need only say this, so far as this Government is concerned, that we brought in these Bills at the earliest possible moment and in such a manner as to give all available time for their discussion before the date when they must, if they are to pass at all, be passed into law.
To change the Constitution now in this House would be to introduce an almost impossible condition of things. The Treaty requires that the Constitution shall be passed in identical terms by both the British and the Irish Parliaments. If changes were made here they must go back to the Irish Parliament for consideration, and it would be wholly impossible, if that course were taken, for the Constitution to pass within the limited time that remains under the Treaty. We have done what we could by agreeing with those who represent the Irish Government as to certain clauses which are found in the Bill, and which explain in a manner which I think will be satisfactory to the House certain points upon which confusion might have arisen, and I think it would be very difficult indeed for this House to improve them.
Lord Midleton made some observations upon the Constitution as it affects those for whom he has been in the habit of acting in the South of Ireland. I will just point out this: That this Constitution has been framed in Ireland. That is in accordance with all the precedents under which the Constitutions of our Dominions have been framed. The Constitution of Canada was framed in Canada. The Constitutions of Australia and of New Zealand were framed in those Dominions, and that of South Africa was framed in

165
South Africa. In every case the first initial framing of the instrument has been left to those most intimately interested, namely, the inhabitants of the Dominion concerned. That precedent has been followed here, and for that reason we find provisions which, I agree, are unfamiliar to us in this country. But as regards the Constitution of the Irish Parliament, the provisions relating to the Senate, and so on, they are wholly within the powers given to the Irish Constituent Assembly, by the Treaty.
That Assembly might have set up a one-chamber Government with no Senate at all. They very wisely, after conferring with my noble friend and others, have set up a Senate. It appears to be not entirely satisfactory to my noble friend and those who act with him, but it has some elements which make for the protection of minorities in Ireland. It is to be chosen Iron: a panel selected partly by the Dail and partly by the Senate when elected. It is to be elected by the method of proportional representation, and go out of office one-third in each year, and arrangements are made for enabling that body to have something like a real effect upon the operations of the other House. It is true that what may be called the principle of the Parliament Act is applied in Ireland in a drastic form, because in the event of a difference between the two Houses there is no doubt that under these provisions the view of the Lower House must prevail; but, nevertheless, there is something in the powers of the Senate which may give considerable influence to those who sit there.
My noble friend himself, and other members of this House who have been in the habit of acting with him, have been invited to accept nomination for the Senate, I venture to express the hope that they will assent to that invitation. I am certain that their influence and their arguments will have their effect both in that body itself and outside that body in Ireland, and I venture, with great diffidence, to suggest to them that by accepting nomination on that body they may render a very real service to their country. But my main answer to the noble Earl on this point is that the Constitution of the Senate to which he refers is wholly in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, and that therefore it is not possible for this Parliament to alter it.
Both the noble Earl and Viscount Long made an appeal to the Government to do what they could to help the minority in
166
Southern Ireland. It is incredible that the Government should not do so. I feel sure that the Irish Government to-day means to be fair to all those citizens who will be within its jurisdiction. I have seen, and watched carefully, the responses which they have made to certain appeals or proposals which have been made to them on matters which interested the House, and I must say I have been very much impressed by their desire to do what appears to be fair and right in all those matters which have been brought to their notice. Therefore, I will not assume for a moment that justice will not be done, but if occasion should arise, I am sure that this Government will feel bound to do its utmost to render assistance to those who now appeal to them. A statement was made the other clay by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the question of compensation, and he has made a further statement to-day on the question of land purchase. On both these matters I believe that this country can, by the use of its credit and perhaps in other ways, be of service to those who are interested in these matters, and in any case, by all means fairly open to us, we shall desire to respond to the appeal which has been made by noble Lords.
I have almost finished with the general considerations, because my noble and learned friend. Lord Sumner recalled the House to the practical question with which your Lordships have to deal, namely, whether this Constitution is or is not in accordance with the Treaty, and, after a very kindly reference to myself, he asked me pointedly whether in my opinion that was so or not. I have not the least hesitation in saying that in my opinion it is. Attention has not been called to-day to any clause of the Constitution which is said to be in conflict with the Treaty. Perhaps that abstinence may have been due to the considerations which the noble and learned Lord mentioned. At all events, that is the fact, and I cannot call to mind any clause which I could say, even taken by itself, is in violation of the Treaty.
But, apart from that, there is, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, what he called the "overhead clause"—the clause which stands in the forefront of the Act passed by the Irish Parliament, and which is recited and re-affirmed in this Bill, by virtue of which, if it should be found hereafter that any clause in the Constitution is contrary to the Treaty, then to that extent that clause will be

167
void and must be disregarded. That point can, of course, be raised at any future time, because it is open to the Irish Courts to entertain that question, and, on the matter being called to their attention in any case where it arises, to decide whether or not the Constitution violates the Treaty and, if it does, then to enforce the conditions of the Treaty. And if an Irish Court should in any respect fail to take that course, it would, of course, be open to His Majesty, in the exercise of his Prerogative, which is saved by the Constitution, and which, indeed, could not be taken away by the Constitution, to give leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. So I do attach great importance to the clause to which my noble and learned friend has referred, and I think that it has force, and, if need be, can be effectively appealed to.
Then, certain other points of detail of the Irish Constitution were raised, and several noble Lords—I think Lord Arran was one of them—referred to the use in the earlier Articles of the Treaty of the word "citizen" as applied to Ireland, believe that the word "citizen" was purposely chosen, and it commends itself to those in this country who deal with these matters. It would, not have been right for the Constitution to use other words perhaps more familiar to us, like "subject" or "national," or words of that kind, because they would have implied the loss by the citizen of Ireland of his position as a British subject. The word "citizen" is used to signify those inhabitants of Ireland who, under the clauses of the Constitution, will become entitled to certain rights—the right to the franchise, and the right to sit in the Irish Parliament—and will be subject to certain obligations. The word is not new, it is used in Canadian Statutes, where the words "Canadian citizen" are found, and I believe that it has exactly the effect which was intended by the framers of this Constitution.
I have been asked whether, under this instrument, a man by becoming an Irish citizen ceases to be a British subject. In my opinion, nobody by this means would lose his status as a British subject, or his right to the protection of the Crown as a British subject abroad. I believe that the only effect of these clauses is to secure to those who fall within them the special rights which are specified in the Constitution.
My noble friend Lord Arran asked another question, I think upon Clause 3, namely,
168
whether the power to opt out of the Irish citizenship, if I may use the expression, would belong to those British subjects to whom he has referred. The point was new to me, and I can only answer it to the best of my ability. I think that the proviso means that any person, not being now a citizen of the Irish Free State, may elect not to accept the citizenship conferred by this clause. In other words, I believe that the option to which the noble Earl referred will belong to all those of whom he spoke.
Lord Oranmore and Browne raised a series of points which I will deal with as briefly as I can. First, he asked whether, as a result of this Constitution, the Irish Peers would lose their right to trial by their Peers. That is a question which I sincerely hope will never arise, because it can only arise if Peers commit treason or felony, or misprision of treason or felony. In those cases, as the law stands to-day, the Irish Peer would have a right to be tried by his Peers, and this House might issue to the Irish Courts a process securing him that right. The noble Lord wants to know what will be the position in future. I will not say positively, but I believe that by virtue of Article 73 of the Constitution, which continues the existing law until it is altered, Peers would retain their right. But if at any future time the Irish Parliament should seek, by legislation, to take away that right, I am not prepared to say that they would not have the right to do so.
After all, the effect of the Treaty, to which the noble Lord himself assented, is to entrust to the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government the preservation of peace, order, and good government in Southern Ireland, and I think it probable that, under the powers so confided to them, they would be able to control a matter such as this, and to determine that all residents in Ireland should be subject to trial according to law. If that is so, I do not think the noble Lord will complain, because that is one of the natural results of the Treaty which was sanctioned by this House. At all events, that is the answer as it occurs to me, but if I should think of any point which affects my answer I will not fail to mention it.
The noble Lord also raised another interesting question, but not one, I think, of very practical importance. He referred to Article 5 of the Constitution under which honours are not to be conferred in Ireland "except with the approval or

169
upon the advice" of the Irish Ministers, and he asked whether that was a modification of the Prerogative for which the Royal assent is necessary before the Bill is passed. I desire to call attention to the fact that the Article only embodies what is now the practice in all our Great Dominions. It is the practice, I believe, before an honour is conferred upon any citizen of any of the great self-governing Dominions, to ascertain the views of the Government of the particular Dominion. Indeed, the matter has gone so far in Canada that a rule has been made under which no Canadian citizen can accept an honour except with the consent of the Government of the Dominion. That rule was made, I think, in the year 1918, or thereabouts, and has been ever since observed. Therefore, the Article has practically- the effect of reaffirming the present practice. If it affects the Prerogative at all it does not affect it in any substantial way. Of course, I am in the hands of the House, but I do not think it is necessary to ask for the special assent of the Crown in this matter.
I draw now towards the end of the list of points which I have marked, but the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, raised a further matter. He wanted to know what was the position of civil servants who lose their office under this Bill if they decline to continue under the new Irish Government. That, of course, is a serious question. Provision for compensation of those officers is made by Article 10 of the Treaty. That Treaty, of course, is a Treaty between this country and Ireland which has been confirmed by Statute and so has become part of the law. That gives a right to these officers to be compensated. The noble Lord said that Article 10 is not referred to in the Constitution. I think it is, in Article 78 of the Constitution. I believe that Agreement will be carried out by the Irish Government. I believe that they intend to carry out their obligations in that respect. They have not given the least sign of any intention of failing in that obligation, and, therefore, I feel in some difficulty in even assuming that it will not be carried out. But if that should happen, then the position would be that there had been a breach of the Agreement between the Irish Government and ourselves, and I believe we are not without resources for the purpose of enforcing that and other agreements. I ant certain that our Government will use all its powers to see that
170
proper compensation is given to those who are entitled to it. What I say now applies to officers of State. I must not be taken to be referring to officers of local government authorities. If that contingency occurs it will be a matter for the Government and I am sure the Government will see that justice is done.
I have covered, I think, all the points which were raised by noble Lords. I have no doubt there are others which will be raised in Committee, to-morrow, but I have endeavoured to furnish the best answer I can to the questions which have been so clearly and so reasonably put to me. I will only add this in conclusion, that it is to me a striking thing, that after a contest which was earnest to the point of bitterness, all men of all Parties are combining together to mould for the best the Treaty, the Constitution, and the position with which we have to deal. The history of Ireland is full of tragedy and of disappointment. It may be that another disappointment is in store for us. But I believe that those who have now the control of the Government of Ireland will do their best to restore peace and order in that country. I am sure that we shall do all we can to help them. Grave issues depend on their success, but the opportunity is theirs and we must leave it to them to use it as they think best. I pray with all my heart that they may use their opportunity wisely and well and for the future happiness of Ireland.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the noble Viscount on the Woolsack has stated quite clearly now that the Constitution is strictly in accordance with the Treaty. After that statement from such high legal authority there is very little more to be said. There was, however, a speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, which as an Irishmen living in Ireland ever since 1916 and enjoying or disenjoying (if I may use such a word) the difficulties of that time, resent very much. I resent the sneers in which the noble Lord indulged in the course of that speech—sneers couched in arithmetical terms. That sort of thing does not get us much further. I noticed, however, that at the end of his speech Lord Sumner said that he would advise the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. Sneers are no alternative at all. What is the alternative if this Bill is not passed? Have we again to go through what we. Irishmen have gone through, which is simply battle, murder and sudden death? I cannot speak in stronger terms

171
than that about what we have suffered in Ireland since 1916. I am not going back to the past at all.
I congratulate the noble Duke who introduced these Bills—most intricate, difficult of understanding, and comprehensive as they are—upon the clear and emphatic manner in which he explained everything. Some remarks were made in the course of the debate which I should like to answer, but I am not going to waste your Lordships' time by replying to many of them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, said that this was probably the last time that Irish affairs would be discussed in the House, but that if they did come up again the issue would be a very grave one. There I agree with him. The noble Duke, in his speech, clearly stated how, under Clause 4, Irish affairs could be dealt with or not dealt with. I feel that we in Ireland shall not any longer be at the mercy of political Parties in this country. I am pleased at that. Although the noble Duke did not tell us, I know exactly what the clause means.
I should like to say a word about those who began to try to end this trouble in Ireland. Although I do not agree with some of the things said by my noble friend Lord Midleton I shall always remember that he was the man who went over and organised the truce. That was the beginning of the end of a certain amount of trouble. I listened with great attention to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead. I have listened to a great many of his speeches, and, although his language sometimes is crude and to the point, and although he puts his arguments very often into forcible language, he has done his best to bring the Parties together in Ireland. There is another name that has not been mentioned in this debate, and that is the name of Mr. Winston Churchill. Mr. Churchill all through has answered those in Ireland who tried to get more than this country would give them, in a statesmanlike and dignified manner. I have read every word of his answers, and I, personally, wish to thank him for the part he took in the deliberations and negotiations.
I only wish to say, in conclusion, that if the Irish Government, as newly constituted, act with firmness and decision—I think your Lordships will understand what I mean by that—there is every hope for the future. Things are not pleasant in Ireland even now. I do not wish to allude to those
172
things. I believe that Mr. Cosgrave and the Dail will do their very best under most difficult circumstances. I agree with every word the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, said. They are going about with their lives in their hands. I live in Ireland, and I know some of these people. I have listened to the debates in the Dail. When you enter there you would think that you were going into a fortress. Those, my Lords, are the conditions under which Government is attempted to be carried on in Ireland now. But firmness and decision will win the day, and I hope that firmness and decision will be forthcoming.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRISH FREE STATE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House that this Bill also shall be given a Second Reading to-day. An Amendment has to be introduced in Committee to carry out an undertaking given by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That will involve a Report stage in this House, and if we can take the Report and also the Third Reading on Monday we shall be able to return the Bill to the House of Commons then. I hope it will not be necessary at this rather late hour to enter into the details of a complicated Bill. I explained in the earlier observations that I made that this Bill is framed mainly for two purposes—one, to carry out a number of undertakings given by the late Government to meet the case of Ulster, and the other, to carry out a number of provisions necessitated by the passing of the main Bill. There are a number of very technical points, and if I am allowed to have the Second Reading now I suggest that it would be most convenient to the House that any points to be raised should be raised on the Committee stage, when I shall do my best to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock until three o'clock to-morrow.