Sitting of 11 July 1923

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL,
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Dover Harbour Bill, Standing Orders 82, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
NEW WRIT,
For the Borough of Leeds (Central Division), in the room of ARTHUR WELLESLEY WILLEY, Esquire, deceased.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the result of the negotiations for peace with Turkey at Lausanne; and when is it expected that the evacuation of Constantinople and the Dardanelles by the Allied troops will commence?
  Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any official statement as to the exact outcome of the peace negotiations with Turkey at Lausanne, and more especially the points which have been purposely left over for subsequent settlement; and whether the general outlines of the settlement arrived at are approved by all the Balkan Powers?
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
  1322
  Affairs whether he has official information as to the result of the peace negotiations with Turkey, and when the Treaty is to be signed?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald MacNeill): The present position at Lausanne is that the semi-official meetings which have taken place since Saturday have enabled an agreement to be reached in principle between the delegations of the inviting Powers and the Turkish delegation. The experts have been requested to reduce to a final form the drafts prepared on certain subjects. But until these drafts have been agreed upon by the Conference, and all outstanding questions are thus formally and definitely disposed of, including negotiations with certain of the Balkan States which are not yet concluded, I cannot state either when the Treaty will be signed, or when the evacuation of Turkish territory by the Allied troops will begin.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact, as stated in the Press, that when Angora has ratified this Treaty, or consented to it, the evacuation will commence within six weeks after that?
  Mr. McNEILL: I think the actual terms have been agreed upon, but I cannot make a definite statement.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that, following the precedent of other Treaties, this Treaty will be brought before this House before its ratification?
  Mr. McNEILL: That is a question which should be put to the Prime Minister, not to me.

  MONTENEGRO (BRITISH CAPITAL).
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that before the War the Montenegrin Government obtained a 5 per cent. loan mainly provided by British capital, on which loan the interest was regularly paid by the Montenegrin Government; whether the Jugo-Slav Government since the forcible annexation of Montenegro has assumed any responsibility in regard to this loan and paid any interest; and whether, see-

  1323
  ing that the Serbian Government has received certain reparation sums from the Central States on behalf of Montenegro and in view of the fact that the loan was obtained from British capital, he will cause representations to be made to Belgrade on this subject, in order to produce a satisfactory arrangement to be arrived at in regard thereto?
  Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative In regard to the second and third parts, His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade has been in communication with the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government in regard to the assumption of responsibility for the Montenegrin loan since the incorporation of Montenegro in the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom, and supplementary budget estimates were recently passed in which provision was made for the service of the current coupons. The question of arrears of interest is still under discussion.

  SLAVE TRADE.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that at the council meeting of the League of Nations held this month the statement was made that the information upon slavery which had been collected by the council from States members of the League was not adequate to provide the basis of a sufficiently complete report; and whether, seeing that it is common knowledge that His Majesty's Government possesses considerable information upon slavery in certain African territories, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to assist the League in the task of attempting to secure the abolition of slavery in all its forms by placing at the disposal of the council portions of the information it possesses upon conditions which will ensure that the efforts of the League to secure the abolition of slavery will not be rendered abortive?
  Mr. McNEILL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on the 25th of June.
  Mr. ROBERTSalso asked the Under-Secretary of State, for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there
  1324
  are in this country at the present time several ex-British Consuls and Vice-Consuls who have occupied official positions in Abyssinia: and whether, in pursuance of our national obligations to do all in our power to put an end to slavery in Africa in all its forms, His Majesty's Government is prepared to suggest to the League of Nations the advisability of inviting these gentlemen to give evidence before the Commission which will consider the question of slavery in September next?
  Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government have always fulfilled, and will continue to fulfil, their obligations in relation to slavery and the slave trade, but these do not include any obligation to interfere in the internal affairs of Abyssinia, which is an independent and friendly State; nor are His Majesty's Government prepared to make suggestions to the League of Nations of the nature indicated in the question.
  Mr. ROBERTS: Is it not the case that we did undertake to use our influence as well as our authority in such cases?
  Mr. McNEILL: I think that if the hon. Member will go into the documents in which our obligations are embodied, he will find that my answer is strictly accurate.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not possible for the Foreign Office to take some action through the League of Nations?
  Mr. McNEILL: That, if I may say so, would be the same question in other words.
  Captain BERKELEY: Is it not the case that application has been made for this information, and, if that be so, will not the hon. Gentleman consider affording it in as ample a manner as possible?
  Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the answer I have just given to the question on the Paper, he will see that that question has been already answered more than once.
  Mr. ROBERTS: Have we not constantly, on previous occasions, used our influence with sovereign nations?
  Mr. McNEILL: That may or may not be the case, but it does not alter the facts of the present case.
  Mr. ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that in Consular Reports and the Report of the Maji Commission referring to slavery to Abyssinia there is evidence that many of the slaves in the slave gangs brought into Abyssinia were raided from British territory forming part of the Colony of Kenya, he will say what steps, if any, have been taken by His Majesty's Government to secure the liberty and restoration of these slaves to British territory?
  Mr. McNEILL: I regret that I am unable to answer this inquiry unless the hon. Member can refer me to the specific reports and passages in reports which he has in mind.
  Mr. ROBERTS: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Report of he Maji Commission, which undoubtedly does contain statements as to slaves being raided from British territory into Abyssinia?
  Mr. McNEILL: Perhaps the hon. Member will, as I have said in my answer, refer me to the passages in the Reports.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the passage which has been quoted from that Report in the pages of the "Times."

  MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY LAW).
  Sir EDWIN STOCKTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that under American law English women married to Americans are regarded as aliens, he can state whether any other countries adopt a similar policy with respect to alien women marrying their nationals; and whether he will see if there is any possibility of arriving at an agreement internationally?
  Mr. McNEILL: The law of nearly all foreign countries is in accordance with English law in holding that the wife takes the nationality of her husband. It would not be possible, within the limits of a reply to a question, to state the actual provisions of the law of each country, but information on the subject has been communicated by the Foreign Office to the Joint Committee on the nationality of married women, the substance of which
  1326
  I shall be happy to supply to the hon. Member should he desire it. For reasons given to the Committee, I do not think there is any present possibility of arriving at an international agreement on this question.

  LIQUOR REGULATIONS, UNITED STATES.
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the American Government has made concessions in the direction of carrying wine in British ships operating between Eastern American ports and the Mediterranean?
  Mr. McNEILL: I understand that Regulations either have been, or will shortly be, promulgated providing that liquor allowances to foreign ships in United States waters will be based on the requirements of the laws of the country in whose trade vessels are operating, as well as on the laws of the country of registry.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    IRISH FREE STATE.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the lands, buildings, and fortifications, formerly the property of the British Government, at Berehaven, Haulbowline, and Lough Swilly have been transferred as the property of the Irish Free State; and will he say what working arrangements have been made for the use of these lands, buildings, and fortifications for the purposes of the Royal Navy?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): As far as the Admiralty is concerned, the reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except for Berehaven, which is expressly reserved under the Treaty. I understand that the Army fortifications at Haulbowline and Lough Swilly are similarly reserved. Under Section 7 (b) of the Treaty, the Government of the Irish Free State will afford, in time of war, such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for purposes of defence.
    Colonel GRETTON: Are there any care-taking parties or any stores in occupation on the part of the Navy in any of these places now?
    Mr. AMERY: I should require notice of that question.

    WELFARE COMMITTEES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the decision promulgated in Admiralty Fleet Order, No. 1,703, Item No. 1, regarding the institution of port welfare committees at the three naval ports, he will consider the committees which at present meet monthly under the name of the lower deck joint committee, which consist of representatives of lower deck benefit societies and kindred institutions as coming within the meaning set out in Admiralty Fleet Order, No. 3,657/20; and whether he will issue instructions accordingly.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): If the request in the hon. and gallant Member's question be that port welfare committees under another name should be recognised by the Admiralty, the Admiralty can only reiterate their decision of the recent Fleet Order of the 26th June, quoted in the preamble of the question, that as a matter of policy this course is not desirable.

    SINGAPORE BASE (GIFT BY STRAITS SETTLEMENTS).
    Mr. PENNYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government of the Straits Settlements have made any offer to contribute towards the cost of the proposed naval base at Singapore by purchasing, at the expense of the Colony, the land required for the site or otherwise?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. I am much pleased to be able to inform the House that my Noble Friend the Secretary of State has received a message from the Governor of the Straits Settlements that, with the concurrence of the unofficial members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of the Colony, the site selected both for the naval base and for the aerodrome will be acquired by the Govern-
    1328
    ment of the Colony and handed over as a free gift. A message has been sent to Sir Laurence Guillemard expressing His Majesty's Government's warm appreciation of this generous and patriotic decision on the part of the Colony.
    Mr. PENNY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the extent of the site that has been granted?
    Mr. AMERY: I should have to have notice of that question.
    Captain BERKELEY: What proportion will the value of this site bear in relation to the total cost of the dock?
    Mr. AMERY: At any rate, it is a very generous and welcome gift.
    Sir GEORGE BERRY: Do not look a gift horse in the mouth!
    Captain BERKELEY: May I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should put it down.

    COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the publication of the Returns of the number of courts-martial held and summary punishments inflicted on seamen in the Royal Navy has been in abeyance since the commencement of the late War; and will the Admiralty now resume their publication and have the Returns brought up to date?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Publication will be resumed beginning with the year 1922. It is not possible to compile the Return for the years 1914–21.

    GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS.
    Mr. PRIVETTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the naval pensions shown with Greenwich Hospital pensions, on page 2369 of the Navy List, are paid from Greenwich Hospital funds; and, if not, will he state from what source the money for these pensions is obtained?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The naval pensions referred to are not paid from Greenwich Hospital funds, but from Navy Vote. 13, Sub-head F.

  FOREIGN WAR VESSELS (CONSTRUCTION IN BRITISH YARDS).
  Mr. HANCOCKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any war vessels of any kind are now being constructed for foreign Powers in private dockyards in Great Britain; if so, how many; and is there any International Treaty that prohibits such construction?
  Mr. AMERY: There is no International Treaty prohibiting the construction of war vessels, though the Washington Treaty prescribes certain limits as to tonnage and armament. With the exception of a coastal motor boat being built for Siam, no war vessel is under construction for any foreign Government at the present moment.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    RELIEF EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour what sums have been expended in relief of unemployment in Great Britain, including unemployment insurance, provision of work, as well as other forms of relief, by the central Government and by local authorities, respectively, during the period 1st January, 1919, to 30th June, 1923, and during the last financial year?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 10th July, to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Shakespeare), in which all the information available is set out.

    BENEFIT, ULVERSTON-IN-FURNESS.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. R. Drinkwater, of Ulverston-in Furness, has been refused unemployment benefit, although he has 32 stamps on his card, and that the reason given by the Exchange officials is that the man in question is only a part-time worker; whether he will state by what authority a person is debarred from benefit after having been forced to pay contributions; whether he has further considered the hardships suffered by part-time workers in connection with unemployment insurance; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am having inquiry made in the matter, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.
    Mr. HAYDAY: With regard to the latter part of the question, has the right hon. Gentleman gone further into the question of part-time workers?
    Sir M. BARLOW: We considered the matter somewhat fully at the time where the Insurance Act was passed, as my hon. Friend knows. I am not able to carry the matter any further.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give consideration to it, in view of the growth of the number of these cases that are attributable to their being part-time workers?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I do not quite accept the suggestion as to the growth of the number of cases. The number of part-time workers given in the figures every week has, within limits, remained very stable. The problem is a difficult one, as my hon. Friend knows, but I do not think it has increased in difficulty. I do not think I can undertake to proceed any further at present.
    Mr. HAYDAY: The right hon. Gentleman will realize that while there is some stamp credit there is some case of hardship. It is not as if it was uncovenanted.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I will keep that in mind.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in a number of cases men not engaged in a trade dispute, who have been stopped working under exactly similar conditions, have received different treatment as regards the payment of unemployed benefit, members of the same gang of workers who were employed on the same job in some cases being refused benefit, and in other cases being granted it; and, in view of the feeling of resentment caused by this difference of treatment, whether he will do all in his power to expedite the Report of the Committee which is considering the amendment of the Unemployed Insurance Acts, whereby the innocent victims of a trade dispute may not be deprived of the unemployed benefit for which they have contributed?
    Sir M. BARLOW: If the hon. Member will give me particulars, I shall be glad

    1331
    to make inquiry into any cases where it is suggested that the decisions on benefit are different although the circumstances are precisely similar. I am informed that the Committee which is considering the working of the Trade Disputes Clause have fully in mind the desirability of reporting as soon as possible.
    Mr. THOMSON: In view of the similarity of the replies in the past few months, is it possible to vary the nature of the replies in the early future?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The hon. Member is aware I am not permitted.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour how many appeals arising from the withholding of unemployment benefit, on the ground that unemployment is due to the present boilermakers' dispute, have been submitted to the court of referees and the umpire; and how many of these appeals have been allowed?
    Sir M. BARLOW: About 6,000 cases arising out of the boilermakers' dispute have so far been the subject of appeal to courts of referees. In about 250 cases the courts have recommended that benefit should be allowed, and in the remainder that benefit should be disallowed. About 355 cases have up to the present been referred to the umpire, who has decided in 84 cases that benefit should be allowed, while 271 cases are still under consideration by him. Some of their appeals were "test cases," so that the number of individual workpeople whose claims were in effect covered by the decisions was larger than the totals stated.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the large number of men in the shipbuilding industry who are now unemployed as a consequence of the dispute between the shipbuilders and the boilermakers and who are not receiving any unemployed benefit, although they are in no way responsible for their present condition of unemployment; whether, in view of the result of the present law in the present and in similar disputes whereby men are denied the benefit that they have been compelled to pay for, he will introduce legislation at an early date to enable workmen who are prevented from working by a trade dispute for which
    1332
    they have no responsibility to receive benefit as ordinary unemployed workmen; and whether it is proposed to reimburse Poor Law guardians for relief given to workmen and their families who are unemployed in circumstances such as those named and also trade unions who pay unemployed benefit?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am aware that under the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, considerable numbers of unemployed workmen in the shipbuilding trades other than boilermakers have had their claims to unemployment benefit disallowed, in consequence of the boilermakers' dispute. No change could be made without legislation, and I cannot consider the question of legislation until I have received the Report of the Committee which, as the hon. Member is doubtless aware, is at present examining the possibility of amending Section 8 (1). This Committee, which contains representatives both of employers and employed persons, is actively engaged in examining the problem, and will hold another meeting on the 17th of this month. I have no funds out of which to reimburse Poor Law guardians or trade unions for relief or benefit paid to persons disqualified for Unemployment Insurance benefit in the circumstances mentioned.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement in the question that the boilermakers are in no way responsible for the present condition of unemployment?
    Mr. McENTEE: Will the Noble Lord again read the question before he puts that supplementary?
    Mr. ROBERT MURRAYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that men who were receiving compensation benefit at the date of the boilermakers' stoppage and who have since ceased to receive compensation have been refused unemployment benefit on the ground that they are involved in the dispute; and that men who were receiving sick benefit at the beginning of the stoppage are not so penalised; and why unemployment benefit should be paid in the one case and not in the other?
    Sir M. BARLOW: There is no discrimination merely on the ground that in one set of cases compensation is being

    1333
    drawn and in other cases sickness benefit. In accordance with the terms of the Act, the question to be decided is whether the person claiming benefit has lost employment owing to the stoppage of work due to the trade dispute, and the answer to this question must depend on all the circumstances of the particular case.

    JUVENILE CENTRES.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that last week an additional 7,000 boys and girls in the Glasgow area left school and are now in search of employment; and whether he will take steps to provide employment or continuation education centres to prevent the evils that accompany enforced idleness?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I understand that approximately 7,000 boys and girls left the elementary schools in the area of the Glasgow Education Authority at the end of the last summer term. Every effort will be made through the Emplyoment Exchanges to provide employment for those who require it. As regards the last part of the question, if, as I assume, the hon. Members refers to juvenile unemployment centres, I may say that I have written to the Glasgow Education Authority, among others, inviting them to open centres from 17th September, on the usual basis of a Government grant of 75 per cent. of the cost.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Will the Minister consider, not this hide-bound juvenile centre, but a system which is going to embrace adolescence, because that is, as he must know, the most important stage of the child's mind?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is not the most effective method of dealing with this large number of unemployed children to raise the school age?
    Sir M. BARLOW: That is a question that ought to be addressed to the President of the Board of Education.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Would the right hon. Gentleman use his influence?
    Mr. G. WHITEasked the Minister of Labour if the conditions under which the Government will pay 75 per cent. of the cost of juvenile unemployment centres from 17th September next
    1334
    will be the same as those in force at present; and if a local authority continuing a centre already in operation can rely on receiving grant from that date?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I anticipate that the conditions under which the Government grant of 75 per cent. of the cost of juvenile unemployment centres will be paid from the 17th September next to 17th April, 1924, will be substantially the same as those previously in force; they will be issued to authorities as soon as possible. Speaking generally, an authority which has had an approved scheme in the past may rely on receiving approval of an application for a scheme during next winter, provided that the scheme continues to comply with the conditions of the grant and that unemployment among juveniles in the area of the authority is still acute.
    Mr. G. WHITE: Could it not be introduced now?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have already announced that the Government are not prepared to go beyond the arrangement already made, namely, to recognise the scheme in the middle of September.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman notify local authorities of the terms of the answer he has just given so that they may be acquainted with the position?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The local authorities are watching the matter closely and the publicity given to this answer will probably be sufficient.

    ALIENS.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the fact that there is no systematic register of aliens in this country, he will state what steps are taken by the Employment Exchanges to ascertain whether aliens are quffalified to receive unemployment benefit?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The only cases where the nationality of the applicant affects a claim to benefit are those where the applicant is a former enemy alien or an alien who has not been resident in this country since 1st January, 1911, and is applying for uncovenanted benefit. In such cases uncovenanted benefit is not payable. On the form of application for

    1335
    uncovenanted benefit the applicant has to state whether or not he is a British subject and in all cases of doubt inquiry is made. I have no reason to suppose that there is any great difficulty in ascertaining the necessary facts in particular cases.

    CASUAL EARNINGS.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a man in receipt of unemployment pay was stopped 3s. 10d. on account of his doing an evening's work for which he received 3s.; and whether steps can be taken to see that in such cases the persons should not suffer deductions in excess of the amount of money earned?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am not aware of the particular case referred to, but Section 7 (2) (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides expressly that, save in certain cases of subsidiary occupations, benefit cannot be paid for any day on which the claimant is following any occupation from which he derives any remuneration or profit.
    Mr. AMMON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that if this continues it is going to put a premium on dishonesty?
    Sir M. BARLOW: We have discussed this a great many times. The question of payment in respect of broken time is one of the most difficult problems in connection with the whole administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I have considered it over and over again, and at present, in view of the very recent consideration given to it in the last Unemployment Act, I cannot carry the matter any further.
    Mr. AMMON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that the effect of his answer will be that these men will not take work?

    NECESSITOUS AREAS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to reply to the request for assistance based on the revised formula submitted to his Department some time ago by the representatives of necessitous areas; and, if not, whether, in view of the increasing cost of out-relief in certain districts, due to the continued growth of
    1336
    local unemployment, he will be able to do so before the House adjourns for the autumn?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to be in a position to announce the decision of the Government on this question some time before the Adjournment.

    OUTER HEBRIDES.
    Sir WILLIAM COTTSasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he will state, with reference to a Circular letter issued by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, dated 8th December, 1922, explaining that the land drainage scheme would not be applicable to the Outer Hebrides, but other proposals for the alleviation of distress and unemployment were under consideration, what the Government intends doing in view of the fact that, generally speaking, nothing so far had been done for the alleviation of distress and unemployment in these islands?
    Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I cannot accept the suggestion that nothing so far has been done for the alleviation of distress and unemployment in the Outer Hebrides since December last. Advances to the amount of over £5,000 have been made through the Board of Agriculture from the Vote for Relief of Unemployment towards the cost of special road works in Lewis and Harris, of which two were mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member's unstarred question on the 26th March. The Unemployment Grants Committee have recently issued to local authorities generally two Circulars relating to works for the relief of unemployment in the winter of 1923–4, of which I am sending copies to the hon. Member.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR (REDUCTIONS).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Labour whether he will submit a Return to the House showing the total number of staff reductions in his Department from 1st January, 1923, to 30th June, 1923, and the percentage of ex-service men among them?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The staff of the Ministry of Labour (exclusive of branch managers—who are paid by fees—and

    1337
    industrial staff) totalled 16,535 on the 1st January, 1923, and 15,104 on the 1st July, a reduction of 1,431. Between the same dates the number of ex-service men employed in the Department has been reduced by 1,277, representing rather more than 89 per cent. of the total reduction. The number of ex-service men, however, still employed is 85·5 per cent. of the total male employés.
    Mr. BARNES: Is there issued any Regulation governing the dismissal of these men with regard to obtaining other employment, taking seniority into consideration?
    Sir M. BARLOW: There are already rules laid down by the various Government inquiries which have sat on the subject, and we carry out absolutely the recommendations of those Committees.

    OFFICE OF WORKS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the First Commissioner of Works what is the total number of staff employed by his Department at the present time, together with

    Temporary Staff in Government Departments.

    —

    Total.

    Ex-Service Men.

    Non-Service Men.

    Women.

    1st July, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    114,078

    59,002

    9,000

    46,076

    1st July, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    73,995

    44,595

    4,124

    25,276

    1st June, 1923

    …

    …

    …

    61,176

    38,751

    2,772

    19,653

    The figures for 1st July, 1923, are not yet available.
    The above statement does not include temporary staff at regimental pay and record offices and unit and command offices under the War Office and Air Ministry, respectively, nor branch managers of the Labour Ministry who are paid by fees.

  UNEMPLOYMENT, FRANCE.
  Mr. COLLISONasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in France on the 31st March for the years 1921, 1922, and 1923?
  Sir M. BARLOW: So far as I am aware, there are no complete figures issued by the French Government or available from
  1338
  the total annual amount paid in salaries and wages; and what were the comparative figures for the year 1913?
  Sir J. BAIRD: The professional, administrative and clerical staff of the Department (i.e., excluding all industrial staff and other manual workers) number 1,786 at present, and cost in salary and wages approximately £580,000 per annum. In 1913 the number was 655 and the cost approximately £148,000.

  UNEMPLOYMENT, FRANCE.

    TEMPORARY EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many temporary employés were serving in Government Departments on 1st July, 1921, 1922, and 1923, respectively; and, of the total number in each year, how many were ex-service men, non-service men, and women?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): If the hon. Member agree, I propose to circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    any other source showing the total number of unemployed persons in France. So far as out-of-work donation is concerned, the numbers of persons in receipt of donation were as follow:

    March, 1921

    81,526

    March, 1922

    7,915

    March, 1923

    2,571

    But the French donation scheme is not so wide in its application as the provisions of our Unemployment Insurance Acts. In many branches of French industry there is an actual shortage of labour and, as I have informed the House, I have been able, with the co-operation of the French Government, to offer facilities to expert mechanics in this country to take up work in France.
    Mr. COLLISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there is such a large decrease in 1922 and 1923?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Because, I assume, the industrial conditions in France very rapidly improved.
    Mr. EMLYN-JONES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the comparative absence of unemployment in France is due to the system of peasant proprietorship?

  HOUSING.

    DEFECTIVE PROPERTY, BASFORD.
    Mr. GEORGE SPENCERasked the Minister of Health if he has received a complaint against the sanitary inspector of the Basford Rural District Council failing to give certificates regarding defective property in the district; and will he inquire into such complaints with a view to a change of policy?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the case referred to, I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. SPENCER: I will do so. I have done so to the Parliamentary Secretary before.

    RENTS, TILBURY.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a communication from the Tilbury Urban District Council protesting against the decision of the Ministry to demand an increase of rent of State-assisted houses built for the working classes in the area of that local authority; and whether, in view of the poverty of the people living in those houses, he can see his way clear to reconsider his decision in this connection?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has not been found possible to reach an agreement regarding the rents of the houses built by the Tilbury Urban District Council under the Assisted Housing Scheme, and the question has, therefore, been referred for decision to the independent tribunal constituted under the Regulations.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 90 per cent. of the men living in Tilbury are casual workers in
    1340
    receipt of not more than £2 a week in wages on the average, and how can they be expected to pay 17s. 10d. a week rent for their homes?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No doubt that consideration will be taken into account by the tribunal when they come to consider the case.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is it a fact that in cases like the one under discussion the Ministry refers them to the local authority, whereas the local authority has no power, except with the sanction of the Department, to make any reduction?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the local authority and the Minister do not agree, the case goes to an independent tribunal for final decision.

    WOODEN HOUSES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the shortage of houses will still be acute at the end of this year, he proposes to continue in force the relaxed bye-laws of the Ministry of Health with regard to wooden houses beyond that date; and whether, in the meantime, local authorities are authorised in over-riding the bye-laws of the Ministry of Health?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Section 25 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, which enabled local authorities during a limited period to consent to the erection and use of buildings notwithstanding the provisions of building bye-laws, is at present in force till 31st December, 1923. Provision has been made in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, now before the House, to extend the operation of the Section for another year. As the hon. and gallant Member will see, a person aggrieved by the neglect or refusal of a local authority to give a consent under the Section has a right of appeal to the Minister of Health.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Many of the people affected have not the facilities for appealing. They do not know of it. Could not the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular to the local authorities reminding them of their duty?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not think there is any occasion to issue a circular to the local authorities reminding them of their duty. I have no doubt

    1341
    the hon. and gallant Member will acquaint them with the fact that they have the right of appeal.

    STATE SUBSIDY.
    Mr. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that, at several housing conferences of representatives of local authorities held in the North of England last week, it was definitely stated that the Ministry of Health intended to make the payment of the subsidy from the State anthorised by the new Bill conditional upon the local authority contributing, out of its rates, towards the cost of the houses, both in the case of those provided by the local authority itself and in the case of those houses provided by the private builder, and in view of the uncertainty created in the minds of certain local authorities on this point, he will state whether the £6 grant by the State to the local authority will be made dependent upon the local authority contributing, out of the local rates, to the cost of such houses, whether provided by itself or by private builders, even in those cases where it can secure their provision without any further charge upon public funds than the £6 State subsidy provided in the Housing Bill?
    Mr. EMLYN-JONESasked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to withhold State subsidies from housing schemes put forward by private enterprise unless some liability is also imposed on local rates in respect of the same schemes; and whether, in such case, he will indicate the extent of the less per house which is expected to be borne by the rates when the full State contribution is paid?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no authority for the statement that the grant by the State of £6 per house for 20 years will be dependent on the local authority making a contribution out of the local rates. Where the local authority with my approval themselves erect houses complying with the Bill, the Government grant will in all cases be £6 for 20 years. Where the local authority grant assistance to private enterprise, the Government grant will be £6 for 20 years if the total assistance so granted is equal to or greater than the equivalent of this annual payment. If the total assistance granted to private enterprise is less than the equivalent of £6 for 20 years, the
    1342
    Government contribution, in accordance with the latter part of the proviso to Clause 1 of the Bill, will be the equivalent of the total assistance actually granted.
    Mr. THOMSON: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman's Department propose to notify the local authorities as to the conditions on which grants will be made so that there may be no misapprehension on the point?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have already notified them as to the provisions in the Bill, and I do not think it is advisable to notify them again until the Bill has passed through all its stages and become law.

    LAND (PRICES).
    Mr. EMLYN-JONESasked the Minister of Health the average price per acre of land purchased for housing schemes and the average rateable value per acre of the same land prior to acquisition?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The average price per acre of land acquired under the State-assisted Schemes authorised by the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, was £177. I have no information as to the average rateable value per acre of the land prior to its acquisition.
    Mr. EMLYN-JONES: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider that 20 years' purchase based on the assessment rent would be a fair price to pay for land acquired for that purpose?

    LOANS (SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT).
    Mr. EMLYN-JONESasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that local authorities are able to obtain loans for housing purposes at 4¾ per cent. or less, and that the present rate at which they are authorised to intending borrowers under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, namely, 5½ per cent., tends to limit the number of possible house purchasers under the Act, he will issue an order permitting loans to be granted at 5 per cent.?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The present general rate is 5½ per cent., but lower rates have been fixed in special cases, and I am prepared to consider any case where the local authority are of opinion that 5 per cent. is an adequate rate for their area.

    HOUSES SANCTIONED.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the adoption of the Housing Bill, he will consider the desirability of issuing a weekly announcement of houses sanctioned under the Measure, specifying in each case the agency by which they are to be constructed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be glad to furnish the House from time to time with particulars of progress of the scheme and with figures of houses completed, but I do not think that it is necessary to issue weekly statements such as the hon. Member suggests.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Health whether, with regard to the list of prices of materials issued by the Building Materials Prices Committee, he can state the quotations, respectively, for Fletton and stock bricks per 1,000; whether he is aware that since the issue of those figures prices have risen materially, notably in the cost of Fletton bricks, by as much as 9s. per 1,000, and that there is a serious shortage of these bricks in the South of England; and what steps he proposes to take, in view of the need for achieving success with his housing programme, to deal with the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of brick prices is engaging the attention of the Committee on Building Materials Prices, who will report further on this subject at an early date. The last published price for Fletton and best and second-hand stock bricks, delivered in London was £2 13s. 3d., and £4 2s. and £3 17s. per 1,000. From the published market rates it does not appear that any increase in the price of Fletton bricks, delivered to King's Cross, has been recorded for some considerable time. It is known that there is a great demand for Fletton bricks in the South of England, and that the manufacturers are making great efforts to meet it.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no stocks of Fletton bricks in the South of England, and that makers are holding up supplies so that they may charge very much increased prices?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that they are holding up supplies.
    Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that within the next few days bricks are going up by 5s. per 1,000, though wages are going down by 3s. a week?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the intimate knowledge of the intentions of manufacturers which appears to be possessed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. JONES: Your Department ought to know.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has not the output of bricks increased enormously during the last four months, and is not that a reason for asking manufacturers to decrease their prices?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe that it is a fact the output has increased very much, and no doubt that will be taken into account by the Committee.

    WELL HALL ESTATE, WOOLWICH.
    Sir K. WOODasked the First Commissioner of Works whether there are any empty, houses on the Well Hall estate, near Woolwich; and whether they are being offered for sale or are they also available for letting?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): There are at the present time six empty houses on this estate. One of these has been sold, for two others offers have been received as a result of which sales will be effected shortly, and as regards the remaining three, which have only fallen vacant during the last three weeks, many offers have been received and are being considered by my Department. Such houses as become vacant are not being offered for letting, but are being sold, and it is found that there is a ready market for them.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is there any truth in the allegation, made in the public Press, that these houses are being kept vacant by the action of the Office of Works, owing to the stipulation that they are to be sold and not to be let?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I did not notice what appeared in the public Press, but the facts are as I have stated.
    Mr. J. JONES: Are the Government showing a good example to private owners when they insist on the houses being sold instead of being let?
    Sir J. BAIRD: The Government have got to do the best they can with the taxpayers' property. Whether a man buys a house or rents it the result is the same so far as accommodating people with houses is concerned.
    Mr. McENTEE: If the houses are held for sale they cannot be occupied, so that that answer cannot be correct.
    Sir J. BAIRD: The answer is correct. The houses are only held for a reasonable time to see whether there are any buyers, and in every case there is a large number of buyers. If it should appear that there are no buyers, obviously we should let them.
    Mr. THOMAS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman understand that if the Government are introducing a Bill to deal with the shortage of houses, the Government ought themselves to set an example and not keep the houses vacant looking from buyers as distinct from tenants?
    Sir J. BAIRD: That is as broad as it is long. Houses can only be occupied by a certain number of people, whether they are sold or let. We prefer to sell houses rather than to let them.

    SURVEYOR AND SANITARY INSPECTOR, STAPLEFORD.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Health whether he approved of the advertisement of the Stapleford Rural District Council for a highway surveyor and sanitary inspector at a salary of £175 per annum inclusive, £50 as highway surveyor and £125 as sanitary inspector; whether he has intimated to the rural district council that in his view a whole-time official should be appointed; if so, whether £125 per annum is held to be an adequate salary for the responsible duties of a sanitary inspector; whether the officer appointed was a member of the Stapleford Rural District Council, and if he holds the qualifications prescribed by the Sanitary Officers Order, 1922; and whether he has sanctioned the appointment?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The advertisement was issued without my knowledge or approval. On learning of it I expressed the view that the two offices combined
    1346
    would at least require the services of one whole-time officer. The Council, however, appointed an unqualified, part-time officer who was a member of the council, and I therefore have declined to approve the appointment.

  BROOK FEVER HOSPITAL, SHOOTERS HILL.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Health whether the Brook Fever Hospital at Shooters Hill is about, to be permanently closed; and whether he can state the reason for this course?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I understand that, owing to the reduction in the number of cases of infectious disease in London, further admissions to this hospital are being stopped for the present, but the hospital will be re-opened as soon as it is needed.

  LOSS OF S.S. "TREVESSA."
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Prime Minister whether there is any fund from which some public recognition of the gallantry displayed by the officers and men of the s.s. "Trevessa" could be made?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to reply. I would refer to the answer given yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. and gallant Member for Battersea South
  Captain BENN: Is there any way in which publicly, officially, some recognition could be given to these gallant men?
  Viscount WOLMER: The Board of Trade have power to give recognition, but my right hon. Friend announced yesterday that he thought it advisable to await the Report of the inquiry which he has instituted into the whole question before the Board of Trade takes action.
  Captain BENN: Assuming that the facts are as we suppose they are, will the Board of Trade take some action in the matter?

  NO-MORE-WAR DEMONSTRATIONS.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Prime Minister whether any instructions have been given to prohibit the holding of no-more-war demonstrations at the end of this month?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of what he has in mind I shall be obliged. No instructions have been issued by my Department.
  Mr. PONSONBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister whether he would accept an invitation to address one of these demonstrations?

  IRON ORE MINES, WEST CUMBERLAND.
  Mr. GAVAN DUFFYasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that practically the whole of the iron ore mines in West Cumberland have been closed down, and that most of the blast furnaces in the same area have been damped down; and whether, seeing that this serious slump in the iron and steel trade is to a large extent attributable to the present position of affairs in the Ruhr Valley and having regard to the fact that this present slump comes after a previous one lasting over two years, any immediate action can be taken by the Government to safeguard the interests of our staple industries?
  Viscount WOLMER: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that a number of iron ore mines have been recently closed down, and several blast furnaces damped down, on the North West Coast. The situation in the Ruhr is receiving constant attention by the Government, and I understand that the Prime Minister hopes to make a statement on the subject to-morrow.

  SMALL-POX (VACCINATION ACTS).
  Sir G. BERRYasked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied with the manner in which the Vaccination Acts are being administered; and, if not, if he is prepared, in view of the present serious epidemic of small-pox, to take steps to enforce rigid compliance with them?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The responsibility for the administration of the Vaccination Acts rests with the Boards of Guardians and their vaccination officers. I am not satisfied that the Acts are being proporly administered in all districts, and am considering what steps can be taken to secure improvement in this respect.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health if he will consider the transference of the administration of vaccination to the general sanitary administration under the sanitary authorities?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This question has been under consideration, but I could not undertake to introduce the necessary legislation during the present Session.

  MILK CHEESE, CREAM, AND MILK-POWDER.
  Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health the result of his consultation with the Minister of Agriculture with a view to the adoption of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee for the imposition of a legal minimum standard of quality applicable to whole-milk cheese, cream, and milk powder?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that my right hon. Friend is examining the situation with a view to determining whether it is practicable to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee in regard to whole-milk cheese and cream. As regards milk powder, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject on the 4th instant.

  LUNACY ACT (FLORENCE HALL).
  Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Florence Hall, detained ostensibly under Section 24 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, in Guildford infirmary, is at present well enough to be employed in the work of that institution; and, having regard to the fact that her sister and brother-in-law have on more than one occasion applied for her discharge and are able and willing to give her every

  1349
  attention and a comfortable home, he will take steps to secure her transference to their care?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that this patient's mental condition and habits are such as to necessitate constant supervision, and that she is unfit for discharge from institutional care.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiries made into the case, as I am informed that the facts are as I have stated?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the hon. Member put questions to me about this case before. I have had inquiries made, and the result is as I have stated.

  MUNICIPAL FARM, LEICESTER.
  Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information relating to the management of the Leicester municipal farm; whether he is aware of the serious financial loss which will have to be borne by the local ratepayers; and whether, in view of the grave charges of neglect and lack of adequate control made against the Farms Committee of the Leicester City Council and the bailiff of the farm, he will immediately appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the whole administration of the farm and locate those responsible?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no special information on this matter and no power to take the action suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, as the matter is one which is entirely within the control of the town council. I will, however, send a copy of the hon. and gallant Member's question to the local authority and ask for their observations.
  Captain EVANS: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Attorney-General if he will give the number of cases in which costs on the County Court scale only were allowed on judgments signed in the High Court during the year 1922?
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am informed that the information asked for is not available.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Attorney-General if he will have included in the Annual Return, Judicial Statistics, High Court of Justice, Proceedings in District Registries, during the year 1923, columns showing, respectively, the number of cases entered which could have been entered in the County Court and the number of cases where, on judgment being signed, costs on the County Court scale were allowed?
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The question as to what should be included in the Annual Return of Judicial Statistics has recently formed the subject of a careful inquiry by an expert Committee, who did not recommend that the statistics should afford the information asked for by the hon. Member. The information would be most costly and laborious to collect, and if it were, as the hon. Member suggests, restricted to the case of proceedings in district registries, it would be incomplete and misleading.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Attorney-General whether the provisions of the County Courts Act, 1919, 9 and 10 Geo. V, c. 73, s. 11, are having the effect of causing cases to be entered in the County Court instead of the High Court?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There has been, since the passing of the Act of 1919, a very large increase in the number of cases for larger amounts commenced in the County Court. This increase is due to many causes and it is impossible to say how much is due to the passing of the Ad of 1919.

  PALESTINE (WAR CEMETERIES).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will explain why, after four years, only four war cemeteries in Palestine out of 34 have been constructionally completed and only about 1,300 headstones erected out of some 12,000; and whether it is possible to have the work accelerated.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): Work in Palestine has been delayed owing to the necessity for consultation

  1351
  between Dominion representatives and their Governments on certain proposals for joint commemoration; and also owing to difficulties in settling the designs most suitable to local circumstances. Although there are altogether 34 cemeteries in Syria and Palestine recorded as containing British war graves, some 16 of these contain less than 20 graves each.

  PENSIONS COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that a circular has been issued by the chief area officer for West Ham notifying that, in future, all claims for travelling expenses or subsistence allowance in connection with out-patients' treatment must be lodged in his office monthly or on completion of the hospital card, whichever is the earlier, that no payments in respect of travelling or subsistence allowances will be made on the 4th of July, but as from that date payment in respect of those claims will be made the following week; for example, claims for fares incurred up to Wednesday, the 4th of July, will, after scrutiny, be paid on Wednesday, the 11th of July, and the next claim should be lodged on the first Wednesday in August or when the hospital card has nine attendances marked thereon; whether he is aware that many of the men affected have to travel long distances, frequently at considerable expense, for hospital treatment; whether the circular is issued with his authority and whether it is national or local in character; and if he will consider the advisability of withdrawing it and thus obviate this financial hardship on the men concerned?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Cramp): The procedure referred to was unauthorised and has now been cancelled. My right hon. Friend is obliged to the hon. Member for calling attention to the matter.

  COASTGUARD SERVICE.
  Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, since the transfer of the
  1352
  coastguard service to the Board of Trade, 201 station officers are employed at £2 19s. per week and 137 at £2 8s. 8d. per week; what is the reason for the difference; and whether he can state how many men in charge of stations draw station officers' pay, and how many do not?
  Viscount WOLMER: 180 Board of Trade coastguard stations are under the charge of station officers, with pay commencing at £2 19s. 5d. a week; and 129 are under senior coastguards, with pay commencing at £2 8s. 8d. a week. The work at the latter stations is not of sufficient importance to justify the appointment of station officers.

  LIFE-SAVING AT SEA.
  Sir E. STOCKTONasked the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department has taken, or proposes to take, on the recommendations of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee regarding the rules for saving life at sea?
  Viscount WOLMER: The report of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee on life-saving appliances has been accepted in principle by the Board of Trade. Draft amended rules are now being prepared by the Department, and will be placed before the Committee as soon as they are ready. After the rules are made, and before they come into operation, they will be laid before Parliament, in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Acts.
  Viscount CURZON: Does the Noble Lord expect that there will be great delay in placing these rules before the Committee?
  Viscount WOLMER: I do not think so.

  AIRCRAFT (FATAL ACCIDENTS).
  Mr. TILLETTasked the Secretary of State for Air what proportion of airmen are burnt to death in aeroplane accidents as against violent death by defective engines, steering, or frame construction; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure an automatic detachment of petrol tanks and protection from fire in any case of enforced landing?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. Hoare): The information asked for in the first part of the question is not readily available in complete detail. I can, however, give to the hon. Member the following figures relating to fatal accidents to aircraft in the British Islands occurring between 1st July, 1920, and 30th June, 1923. The total number of fatal accidents was 57. The number of accidents in which death was found to be due to burning was two. The number of accidents in which fire occurred on impact is 13. As regards the latter part of the question, the Air Ministry, in conjunction with the Aeronautical Research Committee, have for some time past been giving very close attention to the investigation of various methods of preventing fire on impact. It is not at present possible to say in what direction the final solution of this extremely difficult problem may be found, but steady progress is being made, and the question of the use of detachable tanks and their location in aircraft has already been the subject of careful experiment. I shall be very glad to receive any information or suggestions which the hon. Member may have to make on this subject, and should he so desire, I shall be pleased to arrange an interview for him with the Department concerned at the Air Ministry.
  Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is possible to do anything to encourage the use of heavy oil engines in aeroplanes, as opposed to petrol engines?
  Sir S. HOARE: I do not think that that arises here. If the noble Lord will put down a question, I will answer it.

  INQUESTS, COUNTY OF LONDON.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests were held in the County of London during the year ending 30th June, 1923; and in how many cases a verdict was returned that death was caused or accelerated by exposure or want or from starvation?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no figures for the period mentioned, but for the year 1922 there were 5,015 inquests in the
  1354
  County of London. Six cases were reported by the coroners under the collective heading of "deaths from disease aggravated by want, exposure, or self-neglect." Deaths from exposure or self-neglect are not always due to destitution, and the returns do not show which, if any, of these six cases are attributable to destitution.

  ADVERTISEMENTS (NATIONAL FLAG).
  Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Home Secretary whether he will institute an inquiry into the whole question as to the desirability of the use of the national Flag for advertising purposes?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware of any circumstances which would justify such an inquiry.
  Sir W. de FRECE: Do the Government approve of the persistent use of the national flag for advertising purposes?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There have been several questions asked and they have been of an extremely cryptical character. I do not know just what I am to inquire about. If my hon. Friend will speak to me about it, I will look into the matter.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend the deletion of the Union Jack from advertisements of Conservative meetings?
  HON. MEMBERS: Why?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: It is advertising.

  WOMEN POLICE.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary whether the system under which the 20 Metropolitan women police have worked during the current year has proved efficient; and whether he can give the record of work performed by these women from the 1st January to the 1st July, 1923?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, no record is kept of the number of cases in which persons have been warned, admonished or assisted by the women police. The number of charges preferred by them in the period in question is two.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a fact that the number is totally inadequate, and that until the women are put under a trained officer they cannot do what is expected of them?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot accede to that statement.
  Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what official documents are available to Members, giving a record of the work of this useful force?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say offhand, but I shall be glad to supply all the information I can.
  Mr. DUFFY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think, having regard to the number of women's cases dealt with in the City of London, that 20 women police are sufficient?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not, a question of sufficiency alone; it is also a question of the cost.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home, Secretary what arrangements are made regarding lodging accommodation for women police who are single women; and whether there is any supervision of these women when they are off duty?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Unmarried police women are treated in the same way as male constables who are not located in Section House, that is to say, they are left to make their own arrangements as to lodging. They are not under supervision when off duty, but, like other members of the force, they are liable to be recalled to duty at any time if occasion should arise.
  Viscount CURZON: Cannot something be done to extend the use of women police to Plymouth, as well as in London?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!
  Mr. J. JONES: Cannot we have a woman Home Secretary?

  LICENSED VEHICLE DRIVERS, LONDON.
  Mr. TILLETTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that when licensed vehicle drivers in the Metropolitan area are summoned by the magistrates for
  1356
  minor offences they are additionally punished by the police authorities suspending for a period their driving licence, thus depriving them of the means of earning their livelihood; and will he take steps to prevent this dual punishment for one offence?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on the 14th ultimo.

  LANDS AND BUILDINGS (VALUATION).
  Sir W. de FRECEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Inter-Departmental Committee announced officially on 22nd March to work out the details of the creation of a central organisation to deal with valuation and negotiations for sale, purchase, etc., of lands and buildings has actually been appointed; and, in that case, if he can state the names of its members?
  Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Committee is constituted as follows:

  Sir R. R. Scott, K.C.B., C.S.I. (Treasury), Chairman.

  G. B. Canny, Esq., C.B. (Inland Revenue).

  E. H. Coles, Esq., C.B. (Lands Directorate, War Office).

  Sir A. Durrant, M.V.O., O.B.E., (Office of Works).

  C. L. Fielder, Esq., C.B.E., F.S.I. (Admiralty).

  Sir E. J. Harper, F.S.I. (Valuation Office, Inland Revenue).

  With J. H. Woods, Esq. (Treasury) as Secretary.

  CROWN COLONIES (STATE TRADING).
  Sir E. STOCKTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the extent to which the various Crown Colonies indulge in State trading apart from railway construction; whether he will inform the House of the losses sustained by the attempt of the Singapore legislative council to carry on trading in sheep; and whether there are any local complaints that the concern is not run on business lines?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Apart from transport services, model stock farms, and experimental plantations, State trading is not carried on in Colonies to any great extent. The only definite instances which I have been able to find are the Government colliery in Nigeria, a saltern in Ceylon, a Government flax mill in St. Helena, and a few cotton ginneries in various West Indian islands. The importation of sheep was undertaken by the Government of the Straits Settlements in accordance with the recommendation of a local commission on profiteering, with a view to breaking a monopoly and lowering the price of mutton. I have not yet received any official information as to the loss incurred, nor have any recommendations been made on the subject, but my attention has been drawn to a Press article, stating the loss for 1921 and 1922 as 25,504 Straits dollars (under £3,000). The same article states that as a result of the Government operations the retail price of mutton was approximately halved.
  Mr. McENTEE: In view of the fact that it is possible to take steps to break a monopoly in the Crown Colonies, cannot the Government adopt similar action to break monopolies in this country?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think it would be quite so easy to do.

  AFRICAN NATIVES (FLOGGING).
  Mr. SNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, owing to the wide difference between the sentences imposd on white and coloured people, respectively, there exists dissatisfaction in certain African Colonies; whether he is aware that in Rhodesia another native has recently succumbed to flogging and that the white man concerned in this flogging was found guilty of culpable homicide by the white jury, but recommended by them to mercy; that for this offence he was fined £25; that in the same court a native employe of Cedric College was charged with entering the room of the matron at 11 p.m. whilst she was asleep, but did no harm to her; that the lady shot the man through the shoulder; and that the judge sentenced him to 15
  1358
  cuts with a whip and three years' imprisonment with hard labour; and whether he will call for a Report upon these cases?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware of the cases referred to, but I will make inquiries.

  TOOTING BEC ASYLUM.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if, in accordance with the wishes of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and in order to meet the feelings of the inmates and friends of inmates in Tooting Bec Asylum, he will take steps to see that persons whose only disability is general infirmity caused by age are no longer certified as lunatics?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am in communication with the Metropolitan Asylums Board in regard to this matter.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL SERVICE).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether, in accordance with the pledge given by his predecessor, he proposes to consult both the consultative council and representatives of the approved societies before any new terms as to remuneration and service are arranged with the medical men on the panel lists; whether he proposes to arrange such consultation before any offer as to remuneration is made; and when, and in what manner, he proposes any consultation shall take place?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first two parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 11th April. As regards the third part, the matter is now under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
  Sir K. WOOD: Can the representatives of the approved societies be assured that they will be consulted in this matter, inasmuch as they will have to contribute out of their funds to the remuneration of the medical men?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already stated, in answer to my hon. Friend, that I proposed to consult the representatives of the approved societies.

  ALMSHOUSES, BEDFORDSHIRE.
  Mr. WELLSasked the hon. Member for Tonbridge, as representing the Charity Commissioners, what steps have been taken to provide almshouses in Bedfordshire under the will of the late William George Lovell, who died in July, 1909?
  Lieut. - Colonel SPENDER - CLAY (Charity Commissioner): I am to refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the hon. Member for Wood Green on the 8th of March last to a similar question. After that answer had been given, a difficulty arose owing to the refusal of the executors of Mr. Gulland, who was the last surviving trustee of Mrs. Lovell's will, either to accept the trusts of her will or to appoint new trustees. In view of this difficulty, the case was referred by the Commissioners to His Majesty's Attorney-General; and, at his request, Mr. Gulland's executors have now agreed to appoint trustees. As soon as such an appointment has been made, applications to the Court, in the matter of both charities, can be proceeded with.

  ANGLO-GERMAN MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade when a further distribution will be made by the British Clearing Office upon the amount of awards of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal in respect of British claims for compensation already decided by the tribunal under Article 297 of the Treaty of Versailles: and is he aware that six months have now elapsed since the last distribution was made?
  Captain KING (for Viscount Wolmer): A second dividend of 2s. 6d. in the £ will be paid by the Clearing Office on the 31st of this month upon all awards of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal in respect of compensation under Article 297 (e). I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of an announcement on the subject for his information.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes to take on Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): In accordance with the agreement arrived at between all parties last night it is proposed to put down the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Bill as the first Order to be followed by the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Bill, on the definite understanding that if the first Order is not obtained by One o'clock, further discussion of that Measure should be adjourned, so as to allow of a full three hours' Debate on the Third Reading of the Rent Bill to be concluded by Four o'clock. I hope very much it will be possible to get the first-named Bill.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: May I ask a question about the business for to-day. How far is it intended to go with the Agricultural Rates Bill; and will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the principal Act which dealt with a much smaller amount of money and did not apply to Scotland, took 15 Parliamentary days?
Mr. J. JONES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him if he is prepared to give facilities on Friday so that the first Bill may, if necessary, be voted upon before One o'clock?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not quite understand the last question. If the hon. Member means do we propose to get the Bill through before we rise, the answer is "Yes." With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts), we hope to get, as was announced. I think, last week, the Report stage and Third Reading of the Rates Bill.
Mr. ROBERTS: Can we not have a longer time for this really important Measure? It only had four days' discussion in Standing Committee, where never more than 34 Members attended.
The PRIME MINISTER: It is quite true there is no restriction of time in the Standing Committee, and that really shows that the Bill meets with an amount of general approval. It is very important that this Bill should be got before the House adjourns, and, as my hon. Friend knows, time is getting on now.
Mr. THOMAS: Having regard to the fact that the only opposition to the first Order on Friday is likely to come from his side of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman make an effort to persuade his own supporters not to block the Bill?
Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman press upon his supporters—or some of his supporters, because only a few of them take this view—that they are wasting Government time by blocking this Bill?
Viscount CURZON: Is it not the case that a certain number of us who served on the Committee are very anxious to give our views, even though we may eventually support the Bill?
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Agricultural Rates Bill and on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 144.

Division No. 284.]

AYES.

[3.47 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Doyle, N. Grattan

Lamb, J. Q.

Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Ednam, Viscount

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Apsley, Lord

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin

England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Lorden, John William

Astor, Viscountess

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Lorimer, H. D.

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

Lougher, L.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Falcon, Captain Michael

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Barnston, Major Harry

Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

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

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

Frece, Sir Walter de

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Molloy, Major L. G. S.

Berry, Sir George

Furness, G. J.

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Gardiner, James

Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Gates, Percy

Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)

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

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Murchison, C. K.

Blundell, F. N.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Nall, Major Joseph

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

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

Brass, Captain W.

Gretton, Colonel John

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

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

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

Brittain, Sir Harry

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

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

Nield, Sir Herbert

Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

Halstead, Major D.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Bruford, R.

Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Paget, T. G.

Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Pease, William Edwin

Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

Harrison, F. C.

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Butcher, Sir John George

Harvey, Major S. E.

Penny, Frederick George

Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Butt, Sir Alfred

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Button, H. S.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Peto, Basil E.

Cadogan, Major Edward

Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

Pielou, D. P.

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hiley, Sir Ernest

Privett, F. J.

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

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Raine, W.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hopkins John W. W.

Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

Clayton, G. C.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

Remnant, Sir James

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Rentoul, G. S.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hudson, Capt. A.

Reynolds, W. G. W.

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Hurd, Percy A.

Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)

Cope, Major William

Hurst, Gerald B.

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

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

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)

Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Jephcott, A. R.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

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

Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

Russell, William (Bolton)

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

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

Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Shepperson, E. W.

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Singleton, J. E.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Titchfield, Marquess of

Wise, Frederick

Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

Tubbs, S. W.

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

Stanley, Lord

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

Wallace, Captain E.

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

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

Yerburgh, R. D. T.

Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Waring, Major Walter

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

Wells, S. R.

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Richards, R.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Herriotts, J.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Hinds, John

Riley, Ben

Ammon, Charles George

Hirst, G. H.

Ritson, J.

Attlee, C. R.

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)

Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

Barnes, A.

Irving, Dan

Rose, Frank H.

Batey, Joseph

Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

Royce, William Stapleton

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

Salter, Dr. A.

Berkeley, Captain Reginald

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Scrymgeour, E.

Bonwick, A.

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

Sexton, James

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Briant, Frank

Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Bromfield, William

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Simpson, J. Hope

Brotherton, J.

Kenyon, Barnet

Sinclair, Sir A.

Buckie, J.

Lansbury, George

Sitch, Charles H.

Burgess, S.

Lawson, John James

Smillie, Robert

Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

Leach, W.

Smith, T. (Pontefract)

Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

Lee, F.

Snell, Harry

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)

Snowden, Philip

Charleton, H. C.

Linfield, F. C.

Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

Clarke, Sir E. C.

Lowth, T.

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Collison, Levi

MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

M'Entee, V. L.

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

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

March, S.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Duffy, T. Gavan

Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

Tillett, Benjamin

Duncan, C.

Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'd'ne, E.)

Trevelyan, C. P.

Dunnico, H.

Middleton, G.

Warne, G. H.

Edmonds, G.

Millar, J. D.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Morel, E. D.

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

Mosley, Oswald

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Falconer, J.

Muir, John W.

Weir, L. M.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Foot, Isaac

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

Whiteley, W.

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Newbold, J. T. W.

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Gray, Frank (Oxford)

O'Connor, Thomas P.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

O'Grady, Captain James

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Oliver, George Harold

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Grundy, T. W.

Paling, W.

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

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

Pattinson, R. (Grantham)

Wright, W.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)

Hancock, John George

Phillipps, Vivian

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hardie, George D.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

Potts, John S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hayday, Arthur

Pringle, W. M. R.

Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn.

Question put, and agreed to.

RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee and on Consideration), to be printed. [Bill 193.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Sir Norman Rae.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Tees Valley Water Board Bill,
Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
London and North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
Caledonian Insurance Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BILLS REPORTED.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridlington Extension) Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridport Extension) Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Brighton Extension) Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Dover Harbour Bill,
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords],
Mid Kent Water Bill [Lords],
Southern Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the first new Clause, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), and the third, in the name of the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland)—["Definition of agricultural land"]—both of which deal with the question of allotments, they are not in order as they stand at this place. There is one later on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for West Woolwich—["Explanation and meaning of 'allotment'"]—which is in order, and I shall call that when we reach it.
  With regard to the second new Clause, in the name of the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer)—["Rental value attributable to relief"]—he was good enough to submit his case for that Clause to me, and I gave it the most careful consideration. I was at first inclined to think that it was outside the scope of the Bill, as appeared to be the view also of the Chairman of the Standing Committee, but since then it has been brought to my notice that there is actually in the Schedule to the Bill a small provision which deals with the question of rent where rent if fixed by arbitration. Having regard to that, I have felt bound to rule in favour of the hon. Member. What I say with regard to his Clause applies also to the fourth new Clause on the Paper, in the name of the right hon. Member for Tiverton—["Instruction to arbitrator in fixing rents under s. 12 of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923"]. I would express my obligations to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) for drawing my attention to a point which, up to then, had escaped my attention.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Rental value attributable to relief.)
    "In determining for the purposes of Section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding, an arbiter shall not take into account any relief to occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages effected by the Agricultural Rates (Scotland) Acts, 1896 to 1923."—[Mr. Falconer.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. FALCONER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I am much indebted to you, Mr. Speaker, for your further consideration of this Clause. The point which you mentioned had escaped my notice, or was out of my mind, when I had the honour of the interview with you. The object of this Clause is a very simple one, but it raises in a sharp way the question as to whether, in certain circumstances, the occupier is to have the benefit of the relief given to him, and it is not to be regarded as belonging to any extent to the landlord. I understand—
    Mr. SPEAKER: May I just say that I should perhaps have added, in giving my ruling, that it is confined to cases where rent is already fixed by arbitration, and not to wider cases? I should be obliged to rule out of order the fifth new Clause, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Tiverton ["Securing benefit of Act to occupier"]—which goes very much wider than does that of the hon. Member, so that discussion on this Clause will be kept within the terms of the Clause.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. FALCONER: I do not propose to discuss the general question outside of this Clause, and I have purposely narrowed my Clause so as to limit it to the cases where, under Statute, the amount of a rent is fixed, either by arbitration or by a Land Court. I am relieved from troubling the House at any considerable length on this question by the fact that I am given to understand that, in principle, the Government accept the Clause, and while they have views as to making it a better one, so far as draftsmanship and scope are concerned, these views, so far as indicated to me, entirely meet with my approval. I think the lines on which I understand the Government propose to deal with this matter are better and rather wider than those of my Clause. As the Government proposal could not be moved at this stage, I am bound to move my Clause, leaving it to them, between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place, to insert the Clause which they put forward, and leaving that, of course, to be dealt with by this House when it comes back. So far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to accept the Clause on

    1397
    the lines proposed by the Government. I am not going to say anything more on this subject, except to remark that, apart from the merits of this particular case which will be dealt with under this Clause, it is important that the House should in this way lay down the principle that, wherever they properly can, they will protect the occupier from any attempt to give the benefit of the rates, which are intended for his benefit, to the owner on a change of tenancy.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to second the Motion.
    I am glad the Government are prepared to extend the principle, which has already been laid down under Section 6 of the Act of 1906, to cover the cases to which my hon. Friend has referred, and that they propose to deal with this matter, under which the tenant will get full protection, and subsequently the advantage of any relief provided for him by this Bill.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): As I explained to the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer), I am willing to accept this Amendment. It will probably be necessary to amend the Clause to a certain extent, in order to make it more effective for the purposes he has in view. I am not able to make that Amendment on the Report stage, as it is not on the Paper, but I shall have it moved in another place.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman read it?
    Mr. THOMSON: Certainly. It is as follows:
    "The relief to occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages effected by the Agricultural Rates (Scotland) Acts, 1896 to 1923, shall not be taken into account by the landlord in fixing a fair rent for a holding under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, or by an arbiter in determining, for the purposes of Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, what rent is proposed payable in respect of a holding."
    Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for reading the Clause which the Government intend to insert. All the hon. Members who are associated with me in this matter will agree that the terms he suggests are an improvement on those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer).
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I say, in agreeing with my hon. Friends who have spoken, how pleased we on this side of the House are with the generous terms of the Government's new Clause. I am particularly satisfied with them.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am also particularly pleased, that the Government have accepted this Amendment, but I should like to impress on the English Members what a tremendous advantage it is to the Scottish Members that they have separate Acts dealing with these matters. What an enormous advantage it would be to us in England if we could have a similar Clause passed, relating particularly to the small holdings in this country, which would prevent their rents being raised by this remission of rates. This is just an example of how Scotsmen, by standing out for their own conditions and legislation, have an advantage over others.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Instruction to arbitrator in fixing rents under s. 12 of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.)
    Where under Section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, a demand in writing for an arbitration as to rent to be Paid for the holding has been made and has been agreed to, the arbitrator, in determining what rent is properly payable in respect of the holding, shall not take into account any increase in the rental value which is due to the passing of this Act.—[Mr. Acland.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) will see, as I hope he will in a few moments, that it may be possible to do something for England corresponding to what has just been done for Scotland. The Clause I am moving is exactly parallel to that which has just been accepted for Scotland, and if the Minister of Agriculture is ready, not only to accept it but to improve on it, as his colleague has promised in regard to Scotland, those who have been concerned with myself in putting this down will be more than pleased. I am rather glad at the

    1399
    turn the Debate on this matter is taking, because it has appeared to many persons that it has been beyond the wit of man to secure by legislation that the relief which we all desire in this Bill to obtain for the tenant shall not be transferred to the landlord. The case which my new Clause brings up is, of course, a limited one, but it is an important one. It is confined as drafted, and I understand that my wider attempt in another Amendment to go further will not be in order. This Amendment is drafted simply to deal with the case in which a landlord wishes to increase the rent to his tenant. If he simply asks for a higher rent, there is the liability, under the law as it now stands, that his tenant will say, "I shall treat this as notice to quit," on which he gets a year's rent for compensation, or possibly up to two years.
    Under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, we have laid down a way in which a landlord shall be entitled, if he has a good case, to raise the rent, namely, that he can only do so if he proposes that the matter shall be referred to arbitration. If the tenant does not agree to that, he can give him notice to quit, without paying a year's rent. If the tenant does agree, he goes to an arbitrator, who is instructed, under Clause 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, not to take into account the improvements which the tenant has himself made. I suggest that in addition to the instructions not to take into account the improvements, the arbitrator shall have a parallel instruction also not to take into account the relief which the Bill will offer to him if it passes. This will have the effect of retaining the relief under this Act to a tenant which, I am sure, is what is really desired in all parts of the House. I was very glad to have been the humble means of persuading you, Mr. Speaker, that that would be in order, owing to the fact that the Government, in the last words of the Schedule, proposed to give the relief of this Bill to a certain class of crofter holdings in Scotland, and to secure it to them in the fixing of their rent by the Crofters' Commission, the argument being, of course—which the House will accept as fair—that if the Government propose that the Crofters' Commission should be instructed not to allow the landlord to transfer to himself the relief given by this Act, but that that shall go to the
    1400
    tenant, it would not be quite fair to deprive private Members of the opportunity of making the same submission, when we have also in England a statutory provision for fair rents being fixed by a definite authority. I hope, therefore, as the cases in England and Scotland appear to be quite parallel, that the Minister of Agriculture will be able to accept the Motion. I would not dream of suggesting that it would be otherwise than in accordance with the general wishes on this Bill, namely, that the relief shall remain in the tenant, and not be transferred to the landlord; but I hope, if he is able to add to the Motion in any way by extending to it the case of the smallholder, or anything of that kind, he will indicate as much so that it may be put in in another place.
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I am going to accept the Clause. The Government desire that the advantage of anything under this Bill should go to the tenant, and this makes it very clear, in particular cases, that it should be so. With regard to adding to the Clause, I was only aware about 10 minutes ago that it was in order, and I am afraid I have not had time to look into that. If there be any suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman would like to make to me before this Bill goes to another place. I will not go further than to say that I shall be quite ready to accept it.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: There should be no misunderstanding about the effect of this Clause. I think it is satisfactory, within the limited sphere and in the particular cases we are allowed to discuss. So far, so good. What the effect of this Clause will be on the ultimate working of this relief is a totally different matter. That, I understand, we are not to discuss at the present time, and therefore I cannot go into that point. All I wish to say is that this amount of protection, though I am glad to have it, is only confined to a very limited class of cases, and the Government must not ride off by saying that they have now established a dyke which will confine the relief in all cases to the occupier. In the ordinary working of economic laws it will ultimately go to the landlord, though temporarily, no doubt, it will go to the occupier. Of this particular Clause, and because there is now to be an additional statutory provision for it, we are glad,

    1401
    but we must remember it only applies to a particular class of cases, and confines the subject to a particular statutory machinery. Therefore, it does not give anything like complete protection on this point.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Explanation and meaning of "allotment.")
    For the purposes of removing doubts, it is hereby declared that—

    (a) in the principal Act, as amended by this Act, the expression "allotment" includes an allotment garden within the meaning of the Allotments Act, 1922; and

    (b) in the Act of 1896, as amended by this Act, the expression "allotment" includes an allotment garden within the meaning of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922.

    Provided that nothing in this Section shall operate to extend the meaning of the expression "agricultural land" in the principal Act, as amended by this Act, so as to include a cottage garden not exceeding one-quarter of an acre, or to extend the meaning of the expression "agricultural land and heritages" in the Act of 1896 so as to include land occupied together with a house as a garden.—[Sir Kingsley Wood.]
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause is moved for the express purpose of removing doubts. A question has been raised in connection with this Bill as to whether the word "allotments" in the original Act includes allotment gardens. Allotment gardens, speaking quite roughly, are those allotments one sees up and down the country, which are giving work, I think, to 1,300,000 allotment holders. Those allotment holders are naturally concerned as to whether these particular allotments will have the benefit of this Bill. I do not think there is much difficulty about the matter, but it is important that it should be cleared up and expressly put on the Statute Book I know the Minister of Agriculture has always been sympathetic to the allotment holders. He has assisted them very much indeed since he has been in office, and I hope he will see his way, simply for the express purpose of removing a doubt, to allow this Clause to be incorporated in the Bill.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOUR: I beg to second the Motion. I would merely add that I trust that this will be made clear, not only from the point of view of allotment holders in England, but also of those across the Border.
    Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite ready to accept this Clause. I think it makes no difference whatever to the present position of the law, but if there be any doubt on the subject this will fulfil a useful purpose and will remove that doubt.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: With reference to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, I think there is considerable doubt on some points. I think I should be able, by documentary evidence, to prove to the Solicitor-General for Scotland that there is a doubt existing in the minds of the legal advisers. It is, as a matter of fact, the case that allotment holders are now outside the scope of the relief given by the Act of 1896. I should further like to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that the relief given—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—under Clause 1, the expression is used "agricultural land." A holding means any land used for agricultural or pastoral purposes, or as market gardens or allotments. If the Minister, as I understand, accepts the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Woolwich, I think that clears up any latent doubt that does exist as to whether or not allotment holders will receive any benefit.
    Mr. ACLAND: I wish to express a word of gratitude to the Minister for accepting this Amendment. I find it difficult to discuss it without bringing in other issues. There was doubt as to whether the allotment holders under the original Act, were going to have relief in respect of their rates. Whether this Bill will give the allotment holder further relief is, perhaps, a matter that might be well left for the future. I am satisfied to leave the matter there.
    Mr. S. PATTINSON: There is one point which has not been raised. A large number of allotments, which are held by the parish, are let by them directly, and the rates are included in the rent. I think it should be an instruction to the different councils that they should give the smallholders the relief that they

    1403
    themselves will derive under the Act, otherwise the smallholder will not get the benefit.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts)—(Exclusion of building land)—is beyond the scope of the Bill, and is, therefore, out of order.
    Mr. ROBERTS: On a point of Order. Might I urge that, in the first place, there is some precedent for this in the Debate on the principal Act in an Amendment which had a similar title and which was to exclude accommodation land? The matter was debated at considerable length in this House In fact the Amendment was accepted in principle by the Government of the day, and they subsequently ran away from it! What I attempt to do in this Clause is to suggest that if this Bill is intended to give relief to the occupiers of agricultural land, that there is a certain amount of land which cannot at present get relief under the principal Act and will not get relief under this Act, for it cannot really be called agricultural land at all. It is really building land. I wanted to exclude that and thereby diminish the charge.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I ruled the hon. Member's new Clause out of order, on the ground that it proposes to instruct assessment committees in the matter of the valuation of the land.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The reason for putting that in was that the Government, in Committee, objected to the Amendment on the ground that there was no machinery in it, and that some kind of machinery was required. Under those circumstances I put it in. But I shall be glad to move it without the suggested machinery.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that in Committee upstairs the hon. Member fell into a difficulty other than the present one.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely it must be possible, in a Bill proposing to deal with relief of the rates upon agricultural land, to define "agricultural land"? The definition sought to be obtained in this Amendment is a definition as to what
    1404
    shall not constitute agricultural land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] Whether there is embodied in this particular new Clause or not any machinery for deciding how the valuation is to be effected, surely the question is whether certain land of a certain value is or is not to be considered agricultural land? That should be not only in the scope of the Bill, but a matter eminently desirable to debate?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Before you give a final decision, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to another precedent, that in the Agricultural Credits Bill? The same language exactly is used. If it is possible to do it in one Bill, surely it is possible to do it in another? Surely if it was possible, and in order, to discuss it on the principal Act, it is in order to do it on an amending Bill?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am dealing only with the Clause as presented to me. I shall be calling upon the hon. Member a little later in respect of an Amendment in Clause 1.
    I do not select the first two Amendments on the Bill dealing with acreage.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Further exemption of agricultural land in England from rates.)
    (1) During the continuance of this Act, Section one of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896 (hereinafter in this Act referred to as "the principal Act"), which provides that an occupier of agricultural land in England shall, in the case of every rate to which that Act applies, be liable to pay one half only of the rate in the pound payable in respect of buildings and other hereditaments, shall have effect as if for the references in that Section to "one half" there were substituted references to "one quarter":
    Provided that, notwithstanding any provision contained in any other enactment for assessing agricultural land to any rate at less than the rateable value thereof or otherwise giving relief in respect of any rate to occupiers of agricultural land, an occupier of agricultural land shall not, as compared with an occupier of buildings or other hereditaments, pay any rate in a less proportion than one-quarter.
    (2) Where under any local Act passed, or any Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament before the end of the present Session of Parliament, a rate to which the principal Act applied has become consolidated with a rate to which that Act did not apply. Section one of that Act as amended by this Section shall apply to the consolidated rate notwithstanding any provision contained in that Act or Order with respect to the proportion in which occupiers of agricultural land are to be liable to be assessed to or to pay that rate.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "effect" ["shall have effect as if"], to insert the words
    "in the case of every agricultural holding of the acreage of which more than half is arable."
    This Amendment raises the main charge against the Bill made on the Second Reading, namely, that it is unequal in its incidence. If it has to carry out the avowed purpose of helping those in need of help, the particular method which I suggest may not be an unsatisfactory method. The Minister knows much better than any of us what would be the way to carry out the avowed object of the Bill. We tried to offer suggestions in Committee, and the Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health pointed out the difficulties in regard to one or two of the suggestions. This is a method which avoids the difficulty. If there are other objections may we have suggestions for a better method?
    The main point I want to make is that the interest excited in the country, and in the farming newspapers and Press generally, has concentrated itself upon this question of unequal incidence. The Minister himself has talked more than once about the obvious fact that the depression which has given rise to this Bill is, in the main, a depression in arable farming. He can be quoted to show that it is not the grass farms which are suffering, not the grass farms which would have given rise to the proposals in this Bill. The main ground for the Bill, we know, is the distress of a large class of farmers: and the second the avowed object of increasing the employment on the land which was referred, to by the tribunal in its report. We are told now that there is another argument, and another ground for the Bill; that it is a matter of simple justice which ought to have been remedied long ago. If it is a question of justice there is surely no justice in the unequal apportionment of justice! Nobody can deny that. The Minister the other day, on the Second Reading of the Agricultural Credits Bill, said that I wanted to benefit Norfolk, but not Somerset-shire. On the contrary, may I point out that I myself am the possessor of only one farm, a grass farm in Essex, and I cannot say that my grass land in Essex has suffered in any sort of degree
    1406
    to entitle me or my tenant to any help under this Bill.
    We on these benches want to support the Measure in so far as it confers relief on those who really need it. Therefore some method, it seems to us, is required to discriminate between one class and another. We suggest this method as one form in which discrimination might be carried out, and it avoids the objection raised in Committee by the Noble Lord that any new machinery or new assessment would be needed. It seems to be clear that anybody who knows the parish, and certainly the overseers, or the Assessment Committee, as the case may be, possessing an Ordnance 25-inch map, have the acreage of every field. Everybody knows what fields are or are not arable. If you want to find lands which are doubtful you have got to go to the East, to Arabia or to Turkey; where they scratch a bit of land one year and then leave it fallow for about 10 years But everybody in this country knows which is arable and which is not. It may be said that to fix a half is arbitrary; but I submit that it is almost the general principle that farms are either mainly arable or mainly grass. You have an enormous number of farms under one quarter arable. You have an enormous number over three-quarters arable. There are not many farms which are anywhere near the border line so as to give rise to difficulties of administration. You have mainly got the two classes.
    The tribunal went out of its way to add to its recommendations one on the depressed condition of farming and arable land. They state that:
    "Depression in agriculture has affected most seriously the arable districts."
    Again,
    "The most urgent matter is to maintain the arable area."
    They go on to say that the main arguments for doing so is that arable farming helps the national food supply, and in the highest degree provides the required sum of labour.
    I have noticed that since the Second Reading Debate the papers in all parts of the country have, to a degree which has surprised me, criticised the Bill on this very ground, that it will cause certain parts of the country which are in need, even agricultural parts of the country,

    1407
    to put their hands in their pockets, and find the money for districts which are not in need. The taxpayer of the South—not to mention East Anglica again—e.g., the taxpayers of Dorsetshire are in fact going to be fined, and we in the arable districts are to be made to pay for a large class of people who are in no need at all. Cannot some scheme be devised by which the benefit should be on a more pro rata standard? In Shropshire and in Herefordshire you have farmers who, even since the depression began, have made such good profits that they have even bought their farms in the last year or two. Take a case which I have in my mind of a very large farm to which this Bill, if it becomes law in its present form, will make to the farmer a downright present of about £120 a year. It is a very handsome capital value, let us say, of about £2,000, and somebody has to find the money. But why should it be taken from pockets which are not to benefit unless there is some sort of principle and reason in the allocation of that benefit?
    You can take an arable area, and a grass area in the shape of the four large arable counties, and, on the other hand, the five large grass counties amounting to about the same area, and the benefit which will be derived by those four arable counties will be about £285,000, while the benefit derived by the five large grass counties will be £452,000. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Board of Agriculture, or the Ministry of Health, to find some means of rectifying that inequality. This proposal is in the shape of a great public benefaction, in fact, one might call it charity. It is really indiscriminate charity, and it is a thing against which we think some protest ought to be made. It is more than indiscriminate, in fact, it is a kind of inverted charity for which no rhyme nor reason can be advanced. The Government may want to give to him that bath, but surely it is not desirable to take away from him that bath not. I trust the Minister is going to suggest some means by which we can devise a scheme so as to make the benefit meet the needs.
    Mr. R. RICHARDS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    We think that this Bill is not only bad in principle but in its incidence, and
    1408
    we are not convinced that the industry of agriculture is unduly depressed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] At any rate, there is depression in other industries as well as agriculture, and those who have investigated this question impartially will not find that the depression in agriculture has been so much felt in the arable districts of England. The other day the president of the Farmers' Unions said that he could not see that in the dairy and rearing districts agriculture had suffered much during the last three or four years. If it be true that the rearing districts had not suffered, then we feel that those districts have not the same claim to the relief which is suggested in this Bill. The suggestion made here is that some deliberate attempt ought to be made to see that the amount of arable land in this country is not allowed to fall at least below a certain minimum. Every one who has investigated agriculture has been impressed by the great decline in arable cultivation during the last thirty or forty years, and if any relief is to be given it should be done with the object of maintaining arable cultivation at as high a level as we possibly can. I represent a part of the country where the relief given will be to farmers who have not suffered very much during the recent depression, but I suggest that if the farmers of Norfolk and Lincoln who are farming some of the best land in this country have cause to complain, I am not suggesting that those who have to cultivate the poorer land in other parts of the country should not receive some benefit. That is a proof of the very bad incidence of this particular Bill. I suggest that if we are to relieve agriculture, we on this side of the House are convinced that this method of relief is essentially bad, even as between different people living in a rural community, such as the small shopkeeper and others, who are at the present moment over-rated just as much as your agricultural community. The claim we make is that successive Governments have been unfair in dealing with the rural districts, and they have imposed excessive burdens upon them in respect of roads and other matters.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now raising points which are more appropriate to the Second Reading of the Bill. This Measure has passed the Second Reading and the Committee stage. We are on the Report stage, and

    1409
    therefore the hon. Member must confine his remarks to questions dealing with arable land, which is the point raised by the Amendment.
    Mr. RICHARDS: I do not want to do anything to discourage agriculture, or the relief which is to be given with a view to encouraging agriculture. My point is that if we are to give relief to agriculture, let us give it in the direction of cultivating arable land, which is so desirable. We must remember that arable cultivation gives a much larger degree of employment, because, speaking generally, four men per acre are employed, but where there is less arable land it falls to less than one man per acre. It has now been proved that arable cultivation is possible in the higher parts of the country, and there is nothing wrong in suggesting that the relief should be given in proportion to the arable cultivation.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I think this Amendment hits one or two blots in the Bill. I do not think that the Amendment provides a very appropriate remedy for those blots. It is quite true that the present distribution of money is such that it gives most relief where least is needed. It gives relief to those branches of agriculture which cannot make a real claim for it, and it gives the least to those who can put in the strongest claim. To that extent this Amendment hits that blot. A further blot on the Bill is that you grant public money, and you get no public advantage for it. I presume you could have granted public money to agriculture in such a way as to encourage the kind of agriculture which is most in need of it, or which, in the national interest, is most required, although it may not be the most profitable. This Bill does nothing of that kind, and by the forms of the House and the ruling of Mr. Speaker we are not able to discuss what I think would be the appropriate remedy. If we could have discussed the method of distribution and a flat rate per acre we should have been able in that case to have given a greater relief to the arable land, which is so badly hit at the present time, and less relief to those branches of agriculture that are not doing so badly at the present time.
    If I am challenged on that point, I would like to take the case of sheep farms, or, at all events, those which are not arable farms. It is a fact that people
    1410
    are selling their sheep to-day at prices 100 per cent. above the prices obtaining before the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] That is so, and I can prove it from the Report which has been issued by the Board of Agriculture upon agricultural products. There are some branches of that industry which are positively booming, and under these circumstances I cannot see how those prices are likely to come down. There is a shortage of over 4,000,000 sheep in this country, if you compare it with the number we had before the War. What is the remedy to secure those prices going down? If hon. Members opposite challenge my figures, then they must have it out with the Minister of Agriculture, who must have circulated inaccurate statistics, and I am quite prepared to refer them to the Minister of Agriculture.
    There is one particular branch which is not doing so well. The present Bill gives relief to the richest and most fertile land and least to the poorer kinds of land. I confess that I do not like this proposal. With regard to the Amendment, the best you can say for it is that it exposes certain blots in the Bill which are admitted even by the supporters of this legislation. I do not believe that the remedy proposed is very appropriate, and it will be difficult to work. I very much regret that we have not had a proper chance of dealing with this subject effectively in Committee. We had a discussion on the question of distribution which lasted about one hour and is contained in about eight pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Because we had that discussion we are now prevented from proposing what is really the only means of dealing effectively with arable land. That would have given a much larger relief to the arable land which may be rented at 10s. or 15s. an acre, and much less to building and accommodation land which is now going to receive out of public funds relief to which it is not in the least entitled. The theory upon which the Government is acting is that there are certain branches of agriculture which have a claim upon public money in the shape of relief. This is not more than a sop which averages about £6 per holding in England and Wales, but it is given as a sop. It certainly connot be said, as the Minister of Health said, that agriculture must be

    1411
    helped in this way before it can recover itself. Because it is necessary to deal with that, the Minister of Agriculture thinks he is quite entitled to throw public money about and to give it to a number of people who certainly do not deserve it—to give it to holders of urban land which is not agricultural. There is, in consequence, going to be under this Act, as there was under previous Acts, a certain amount of relief given to people who are depressed—that I am prepared to admit—but there will also be a considerable amount of money paid in quarters which cannot possibly make out a just claim for it.
    Sir R. SANDERS: The only theory of the Labour party appears to be that men should have their bread without butter. That is the only theory I can see which justifies this Amendment. The proposal is that those who grow bread shall get some remission of taxation, but those who produce butter shall get none. You are not doing anything for arable land by this Amendment. You propose to leave it in exactly the same position as it would be under the Bill, but you propose to take away whatever relief the Bill gives from those who produce butter, cheese, and other necessary articles of human food in this country. There seems to be a sort of grudge against men who hold grass farms and produce the milk which the children of our country so greatly need.
    Mr. N. BUXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not in favour of arable dairy farming?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I differ entirely from the whole principle embodied in the speeches we have heard from the other side this afternoon. I cannot agree that we want this Bill in order to give charity, as one hon. Member said. I do not call it a sop, or charity, or a dole, or a subsidy. I regard it as a plain matter of justice to those who have been paying too much for a great many years past. There is another thing of which I would remind hon. Members opposite. They speak about our giving money as a sop to agriculture. Not a halfpenny of this money is going to agriculture. It is not to be paid to the farmer, it is to be paid to the other ratepayers of the district, and it is to save their pockets that this money is voted.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is now following the example set on the other side, and touching upon Second Reading points.
    Sir R. SANDERS: The grass farmer, quite as much as the arable farmer, has a grievance against his neighbour with the same income in that he is paying a very much larger share of his income towards local taxation. It is intended by this Amendment that the grass farmer shall continue to pay exactly what he does at the present time towards education, police, Poor Law, roads, and so on. It is proposed that he should continue to contribute double or treble as much as his neighbour who has the same income, and he is to do that because he happens to be a farmer of grass land. Why should he be mulct in that heavy manner? He gets no more benefit than his neighbour from any of the services I have named. His ability to pay is no greater, and there is no reason why he should pay more than his neighbour with the same income. On the ground that he has been unfairly treated in the past, and that we desire to remedy his grievance, I cannot accept this Amendment.
    Mr. R. PATTINSON: I have been a good deal astonished to find that the poor, miserable grass farmer is deemed by some Members of this House not to be worthy of consideration. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the case of the farmer in the County of Lincoln who has to farm land which is a good deal more grass than arable for the simple reason that he takes in certain common rights and grows mangoldwurtzel. He has attached to his farm some of the coldest clay land in England which is absolutely unsuitable for growing corn, as was proved during the War. Heaps of this land was ploughed up during the War with disastrous results to those who owned it, to those who farmed it, and to the nation at large. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. N. Buxton) be adopted it will simply mean that many of my constituents in the Grantham Division will be deprived of the relief which is equitably due to them. We do not claim relief on the simple ground that we are badly off; we claim it on the ground that the burden on the land is greater than it should be, and that the

    1413
    time has come, whether it be for arable land or for grass land, when we should be granted some measure of relief from the excessive charges placed on the backs of the agricultural community—charges which that community is not able to bear. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) why it is that a man who farms land adjacent to a large urban district is not to have relief simply because it may be potential building land? After all, that man is not making a living out of the value of the land as potential building land. There is no profit coming to him from that fact. Whatever profit does ultimately come will go to the landowner, and then will be the time to tax the landowner upon it. I am quite willing to assist in doing that at the proper time. So far as the occupier to-day is concerned, he is as worthy of relief as any other man in the farming industry, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will continue to resist this Amendment, the carrying of which would be disastrous to many men who live in my division. I well remember the efforts of that noble champion of agriculture, the late Lord Chaplin, on behalf of the occupiers of land whom we to-day wish to save from disaster. Take Lincoln Heath to-day. I believe some of the Londesborough estates have recently been sold and one farm has been bought by Scotsmen from across the border. They are coming down to Lincolnshire to till that farm. They are going to lay it down to grass, I am told. I can only say, good luck to them if they can keep it from being prairie in the end. The truth of the matter is that the whole agricultural community are suffering by reason of the burdens which this House has placed on them in order to provide for the services of the public. As I understand it, a Liberal principle is that the burdens should be put on the backs of those best able to bear it, and I am surprised therefore that my Labour and Liberal Friends are not willing to give support to this Bill.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I can see we made a mistake in moving this Amendment. We did not appreciate the real object of the Government in bringing in this Bill. We thought, and judging from the Second Reading speeches we were entitled to think, that the Govern-
    1414
    ment, in introducing the Bill, had an idea of providing more employment in agriculture. They were so anxious to help the unemployed that they were willing to relieve the rates and put the money into the landlords' pockets in order that they might spend it on employment. We thought they were anxious to provide employment by making it possible to keep land in cultivation instead of allowing it to go out of cultivation, and, believing that, we were indiscreet enough to suggest that the greatest relief should be given to that land which is at prsent under the plough and which would go out of cultivation if this relief were refused. Now we find that that is not the object of the Government. The Minister has made it perfectly clear that this is a bread and butter Bill for the whole of agriculture, and that it is unjust and unfair to the industry that you should give bread and butter to one agriculturist and not to another. That is a beautiful theory—beautiful for us, because we provide the bread and butter and they eat it. If one section of the industry is going to have bread and butter the other sections of the industry had also better have it. But let us get rid of all this cant and humbug about this being a Measure intended to solve the unemployment problem and to lead to increased employment on the land.
    Major WHELER: Is it not a fact that, if this Amendment be carried, not only the relief we wish to be given to agricultural land, but also the relief which was given by the Act of 1896 will be done away with entirely, and that there will be no relief for agriculture at all? If that be so, it is clear that the intention of the hon. Gentleman opposite is not to help agriculture, but to put it in a worse position than it is to-day. It is well we should realise the exact position taken up by the Labour party towards a Bill which is intended for the benefit of agriculture.
    Mr. ACLAND: I should like to emphasise and reinforce the argument used by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I think the party which has brought forward this Amendment has mistaken the position and had therefore better withdraw it, and let us get on with matters which concern us more particularly. The Government have made the position

    1415
    quite clear. This is not a Bill designed primarily or mainly far the relief of agriculture, but it is a Bill for the relief of the unfair incidence of rating, and the arguments which have been addressed to the House show where that relief will go. It is extremely difficult, except in regard to a small Clause of mine which the Government have accepted, to deny that the relief will ultimately go to the landowner. The Government have not, brought in this Bill to relieve agriculture or to cure unemployment in agriculture. They have not considered that where agriculture is doing worst there it needs most relief; they have simply pitched on one thing, and unless it can be argued that they have pitched on the wrong thing, there is no injustice involved in their proposal. The thing they have pitched upon is that the occupier of agricultural land, whether grass or arable, is far more highly rated than other persons in the district in which he lives, compared with the incomes which they both enjoy and with the benefit which they both get from the rates. If it can be argued that, as a matter of fact, the tenant of such land is not fairly rated compared with his income and compared with the income of other persons, then I think there is no ground for saying that the Bill is a bad Bill, which ought not to be passed. As long as the Government introduce the Bill—as apparently they did in this case—only as a Bill to remedy an injustice which exists, it seems to me that one is honourably bound to back them up, as far as one can, in removing that injustice, and we ought to support this Measure to give relief and assistance to agriculturists in their respective, districts. Considering how particularly these arable districts are suffering, I shall have to support the hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment, because the relief is not distributed in that way. But if the Minister says that this Bill does not do all that is required, and that it is not a final settlement of the agricultural position in general, but is merely a Bill to remove an admitted hardship, then one is bound to contribute, as far as one can, to removing that hardship.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: While the wording of this Amendment may not be suitable,
    1416
    I think the Minister in charge of the Bill should recognise that there is no desire on the part of the Mover or Seconder or any of its supporters to make it impossible to give relief where agricultural relief is really necessary. Further, it should be stated that this Amendment is perhaps the result of listening to and reading a statement made by the Minister of Health who introduced this Bill. To use his own words, he said:
    "Agriculture is in a desperate position, and unless something be done to assist the industry, it is clear that much of the land which is now arable must either go out of cultivation or be laid down to grass, with results that will be disastrous, not only to those actually engaged in the industry, but also to town dwellers."
    If that statement be the considered feeling of the Government, obviously it shows that the arable farmer is entitled to more benefit and relief than any other section of the agricultural community. I do not suggest that all Departments of agriculture are not in a difficulty in some degree, but if, as the Minister of Health stated, those agriculturists who have now got arable farms can see only one way out, namely, by turning the arable land into grass land, is it not fair to assume that the lack of discrimination in this Bill will encourage those who have arable farms to lay them down to grass which will be the most lucrative department? If arable farmers are suffering the most they need the greatest amount of assistance. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that this Amendment would not assist the arable farmer, as he would merely get the same amount of relief after the passing of this Amendment which would he his lot if the Amendment were not passed. But the same encouragement for the arable farmer still remains to turn his land into grass, and thereby reduce the quantity of food produced in this country. I suggest to the Minister that it is the last thing any Government should do to do anything that would tend to reduce the amount of food produced in this country. If there is any sincerity in the suggestion that this allocation of some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 would assist employment, it could only do so if we maintained or improved the quantity of land that is going to be arable in future. We have had the intellectual microscopes of the Minister of Health and of the Minister of Agriculture bearing on this problem, and we are now in the position that it is about as clear as a

    1417
    London fog. We do not know whether to view the question from the point of view of removing a great anomaly or of making safe seats for some Members of this House. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. R. Pattinson) appeared to confine his attention to benefits that might be derived by particular farmers in his constituency.
    Although the words of the Amendment may not be the most suitable words, Members on this side of the House have no desire to withhold from agriculture the benefit agriculture is entitled to, whether it comes in the shape of relief to the arable farmer or relief to the other sections of the agricultural community, but we do want to see that the maximum number of workpeople are to be kept on the land. Secondly, we want to see the relief so equitable that no adverse effects will result. I think the Minister might reconsider this question and, if he cannot accept the Amendment, he might introduce another Clause which would give effect to what is desired.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I want to point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, I am perfectly sure, are honest in their desire to maintain arable land under cultivation, that this is a totally impossible and impracticable Amendment. How are you to draw a distinction between arable land and land under grass? Can any hon. Member opposite define what is meant by arable land? Some land is laid down in temporary pasture for one year or more and then ploughed up and a corn crop taken. Sometimes it is laid down in pasturage for two, three or four or even five years, and then it is ploughed up again. In farming there is no hard and fast lines drawn between arable and grass land.
    Mr. N. BUXTON: The right hon. Gentleman challenges me with knowing nothing about agriculture, which he is quite at liberty to do. But I know quite as much of that class of land as he does, and I may tell him that it is often laid to grass for even more than the five years he speaks of. But it is perfectly obvious that the land of which he speaks is arable land, because it is periodically ploughed up at short intervals.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: And that is the way that most of the land which is referred to is going down to grass. You have large
    1418
    areas of land in North Lincolnshire, which is one of the most important cereal districts in England. When that land is spoken of as going from arable to grass, it does not mean that large areas are to be laid down in permanent pasture. It means that, instead of ploughing up one-half or three-quarters as arable, that area will be laid down to grass for two or three years. Half or less than half of a farm will be ploughed. If you take the whole area of the Lincolnshire Wolds, these arable farms will normally remain arable farms, but a larger proportion of them will be in temporary pasture. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) spoke of sheep farming as a separate branch of the agricultural industry. To talk in that way is simply to throw dust in the eyes of the House. It is quite true that sheep farming in Scotland or in mountain pastures is a branch by itself, and you have sheep on mountain pasture which keeps nothing but sheep. But sheep farming, as a matter of fact, is a mere part of the industry of farming in the most arable of the arable counties of England.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The right hon. Member shows his usual attitude towards us, but I would like to point out that that is exactly what I was saying. I was not speaking of sheep on arable farms; I was referring to the particular hill farms which are concentrated on sheep. I was simply taking that as one branch of agriculture. It is no use talking of agriculture as if it were one thing. It has a number of departments.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, but I have heard him putting forward the argument that this relief should not be given because it is profitable to produce sheep. I do not agree that sheep are bringing prices 100 per cent. more than before the War, but the price is a very considerable advance. I want to say that it is only by producing sheep that a large proportion of the poorer arable lands of this country have been able to grow corn at all. I repeat, without fear of contradiction, that, with practically no exception, there is a loss to-day on every acre of cereals grown in this country. You cannot grow an acre of corn to-day unless you are to lose money on it. All you can do with your sheep is to mitigate that loss to some extent. I beg to assure hon.

    1419
    Members opposite that if this Amendment were carried you would get into an extraordinary difficulty in defining what is arable land and what is not. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they really do desire to benefit agriculture, that they cannot draw hard and fast lines across the agricultural industry, between this and other particular branches of it. The man who wants relief is the man who has the heaviest burden. I trust this Bill will be accepted in the spirit which is asked for it, and that it will be a recognition by the whole of us and not one party only of the needs of agriculture.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD indicated dissent.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Well, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has a particular view, and his view is obscured by a particular crochet which he has in his head, he can see nothing else, but I hope this Bill may go as a gift from the whole of the House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The House has listened with appreciation to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), as it always does. It is true he has made out a strong case in detail against the Amendment which the House is discussing. He has suggested that, on practical grounds, it would be a matter of great difficulty to make the distinction contained in the Amendment. But, at the same time, I do not think he should have poured such contempt on the efforts of those who proposed the Amendment. After all, those hon. Gentlemen were simply endeavouring to meet an injustice which the right hon. Gentleman himself has confessed. The right hon. Gentleman himself has confessed that the operation of the relief to agricultural land is not fair in its incidence. I find that the right hon. Gentleman gave evidence before a Commission on this subject, and he was talking of the mode of relief under the existing Act. This Bill is to continue the mode of relief under the existing Act, and it rather aggravates any inequalities that there operate. The right hon. Gentleman, in giving that evidence—not making a speech in Debate, but giving evidence before a Commission for the purpose of exploring the truth—spoke in a somewhat different way. He said:
    "I think it is a bad method"—
    1420
    that is, the method in the Bill which he is now defending—
    "because the relief is given to the land which is best able to bear the burden. That gets the most relief, and the land which is least able to bear the burden gets the least relief. That is inseparable from that form of relief, and that is one of the reasons, I suppose, why it is made only temporary."
    After all, the Amendment before the House is an attempt to deal with what the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted to be a bad method of giving relief, and, in these circumstances, the motive of the hon. Members who have proposed it might at least be free from blame. Personally, I do not attach a great deal of importance to this Amendment or to the method of distributing the relief, because I believe that in this matter it is of no consequence how you divide it; it is going to the landlord. To go on with this camouflage that it is for the farmer, whether he be a dairy farmer or an arable farmer, is keeping up a solemn farce which deceives no one. The new Clause which was adopted earlier in the day indicates exactly what the position is.
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Fitzroy): We must confine ourselves to the Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am sorry. I have been dealing with certain arguments which have been adduced from the other side of the House. The question has been bandied about as to whether those who support this Amendment intend to deal unjustly with the dairy farmer, while dealing more generously with the arable farmer; and in dealing with these respective contentions I respectfully submit that I am entitled to point out that it is not going to matter to either. That is my sole object. It makes a difference, of course, in respect of the different classes of land, and that was the point of the criticism which I have quoted from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman); but in showing that it does not go to either of these people, and that, consequently, both sets of arguments are irrelevant, I am, surely, entitled to point, as an illustration, to the operation of the new Clause which has been adopted, and which in itself admits that, where there is no statutory protection for the tenant, the whole benefit will go to the landlord.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I submit that, if I am contending that this Amendment is a matter of no consequence, I am entitled to show on what grounds it is of no consequence, although those grounds may be inadequate. I do not, however, propose to enlarge upon the matter; I have said enough to establish the case. I can quite understand that there is some reluctance to hear this particular point of view put. We have to consider, however, whether, failing this particular method of making a distinction, there is not some other method of doing it. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) did suggest another method on another occasion, and what we desire to know from the Government is whether they would not consider some method of arriving at greater justice in the distribution of this relief. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford, in his speech to-day, described this as a matter of justice, and I observe that on a similar Amendment during the Committee stage he also emphasised it as a matter of justice. He regards it as a matter of justice to the agricultural industry as a whole, but, if you are giving relief, it surely goes to the root of the matter if that relief is not fairly divided. It is admitted, even by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it is not fairly divided, and, consequently, the whole argument in regard to justice is vitiated if there is inequality of distribution. In these circumstances, I think that that is a strong ground for abandoning this proposal altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford, as usual, describes this as a temporary arrangement, and says it is unnecessary, therefore, to suggest any alternative view, because something new is to be done later. That, of course, applies to the original Act, which has gone on for 26 years, and probably this will go on for an equal length of time. I hope, however, that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway will proceed with their Amendment, because it has afforded an opportunity of showing the humbug upon which the whole proposal is based. It is not a proposal to relieve those actually engaged in the industry; it is only a means, in the long run, of helping those who enjoy the rents
    1422
    which are earned by those engaged in the industry.
    Captain DIXON: I want to say a word on behalf of the grazing farmer, and am not going to differentiate between ordinary grass land and feeding land. I think my hon. Friend opposite, in this Amendment, is dealing with feeding land. Apart altogether from the ridiculous idea that a farmer in Wiltshire or Somerset is to be treated on different terms from a farmer in Norfolk, I should like to say that the one hope of getting enough milk for the children of England is in the grazing and feeding lands of England, and that these lands have never received the treatment which they should have received. If the farmers who work those grazing lands had had enough money to dress them with artificial manure and treat them properly, I venture to state that they could feed at least double the number of milch cows that they are feeding at the present time. In very large areas of England, also, the grazing tenants have bought their holdings, and have paid for them, I think, much more than the land was worth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Hon. Members say, "Hear, hear!" and, therefore, they ought to be supporting this side of the House instead of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite. It is perfectly clear that, if you do not allow the same terms to grazing farmers that are given to arable farmers, those grazing farmers will cease to carry out the purpose that they are carrying out now, that is to say, supplying milk for the children of the people of England. There is another point that I should like to raise, and that is that the grazing farmers of England have already had a serious load put upon their shoulders owing to the artificial holding up of Irish store cattle. At present store cattle are £2 or £3 more per head, and I venture to say that that is not only a tax upon the grazing farmer, but is a tax upon the people of England, because beef is dearer this year than it has ever been before. Therefore, I think it would be most unfair to the graziers of England to put on the top of this tax upon Irish cattle, which are really supplying the best beef for England, this further taxation by not giving them the same relief that is given to arable farmers.
    Mr. RILEY: I am sure the Minister will accept it when I say that we on these benches do not put forward this Amendment in a factitious spirit. It is not put forward at all for the purpose of opposing the Bill. There is a point in regard to the Amendment which I do not think anyone can contend has been met, and that is that the proposed relief as arranged for in the Bill will go, so far as two-thirds of it is concerned, to the occupiers of pasture land, and, so far as one-third is concerned, to the occupiers of arable land. It has been contended to-day that this Bill is not put forward as a remedy for the distress in agriculture. It is now contended that it is put forward as a piece of rating reform, as a method of adjusting the burden of rates. I want to submit to the House that in that contention which to made now, there is an entire shifting of the ground. The whole purpose of the Minister's speech, when he introduced the Bill, was that this Bill was brought forward to meet depression in agriculture.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This particular Amendment proposes to confine the relief given to holdings which are half-arable. It has nothing to do with the proposals contained in the Minister's speech.
    Mr. RILEY: I submit, with due deference, that what I am saying is quite material to that point. The Minister, in introducing the Bill, used these words:
    "It is an important fact that the complaints as to the state of the agricultural industry are not nearly so severe from grass counties, which after all represent about two-thirds of the whole."
    The Minister indicated, therefore, that the purpose was to relieve the difficulties of those who were engaged in arable farming. That was the clearly expressed purpose of the Minister on the introduction of the Bill. Our contention is that the Bill, as it now stands, does not give relief to the right people, but gives it to the occupier of grass land, and it is not contended that they need relief to anything like the same extent as those who are occupying arable land. Let me remind the House of one striking illustration with regard to the claims of arable occupiers as against those of pasture farmers. It is a case that was given during the Committee stage of this very Bill. The hon. Member for South Norfolk
    1424
    (Major T. W. Hay), whom I do not see in his place to-day, instanced the cases of Cambridgeshire and Derbyshire. Cambridgeshire, which is purely, or at any rate very largely, an arable county, and is of approximately the same size as the County of Derby, received £13,000 under the 1896 Act, while Derbyshire, which is mainly pasture, got £26,000. Under this Bill Derbyshire, which still needs relief less than Cambridgeshire, will get twice the amount that Cambridgeshire will get. The Minister said to-day that this Bill is to give a measure of justice to agriculture. We on this side say that in allocating the relief equally to arable and pasture land, it is giving the bulk of the relief to the land which does not require it and the least to the land that does require it. One other consideration I wish to urge which may appeal to some hon. Members opposite. Whatever other merits this Amendment may have it would reduce the amount required by about two-thirds. The amount proposed to be given is now £2,750,000. On the Minister's own showing the amount of arable land is approximately one-third of the whole and assuming, which is not the case, that the value per acre is the same—as a matter of fact arable is less than pasture land—it will reduce the amount required by about two thirds. The Amendment represents a saving of £2,000,000 on this £2,750,000. On the ground that the incidence of this relief is entirely unfair and inequitable and extravagant, I support the Amendment.
    Mr. LAMB: The Amendment proposes to confine the relief that is given to arable land as against the general relief which it is intended should be given to agriculture as a whole. That would have two effects. First, it would make the Bill practically unworkable, and secondly, in any case if machinery were set up to make the Bill workable with this Amendment in it, it would so far delay it that it would be disastrous, because what little relief is going to be received by agriculture under this Bill is required immediately and with as little delay as possible. With regard to the first point it would be almost impossible to ascertain what is arable and what is grass land, not only because of the varying periods for which the land is laid down, but also for the very fact that the amount of land which could honestly be called arable on

    1425
    a farm one year would vary very considerably as against the next, and it would necessitate the appointment of a very large number of what I term unnecessary officials to ascertain and to check the amount of land which, under the Amendment, was entitled to the relief given. Again, the question of the quality of the land comes in, because the amount of food produced from it is taken into consideration. There is a very peat deal of variation between the amount of food which one piece of land will produce as against other land in other circumstances and under other conditions. It has been said by some that the objects of the Bill are to increase the amount of arable land and the amount of labour employed in rural areas. Both are admirable objects, which on other occasions I should have pleasure in supporting, but on this occasion I consider they are not germane to the Amendment, because this is a measure of rating reform, and as such can be properly considered as a relief, not to any particular type of agriculture, but to agriculture as a whole. I hope the Minister will continue to resist the Amendment.
    Mr. J. C. DAVIES: There is only one objection to the Amendment that I should like to press and that is that its acceptance involves the exclusion from the benefits of the Bill of at least one-half of the farmers in my constituency. I go further and say that it would mean the exclusion of at least three-fourths of the farms in North Wales. I should like to join issue with hon. Members who have expressed the view that it is only the arable farmers who need assistance. From the best information I can obtain, speaking for my own constituency, the pasture farmers need assistance almost as much as the others. In fact the distress is very acute. The condition in North Wales is somewhat remarkable. Largely owing to the fictitious prosperity which prevailed from 1916 to 1921 the price of land went up immensely, and in consequence a large number of estates were brought to the market and a large number of farms were sold. A large number of tenant farmers bought their farms at exorbitant prices. Really they had no option in the matter. They either had to buy or to turn out, and at the time there were no houses available. We all know the deep attachment of the tenant farmer to his home.
    1426
    They were induced to offer much higher prices, relying on the supposed security of Acts of Parliament, and of course the Government of the day were guilty of a breach of faith to the farmer when they abolished the Agriculture Act. They are now in dire distress and they need all the assistance we can give them. I dare say the position in many other parts of the country is somewhat similar. I am only sorry the Government did not go further and did not follow the consistent and logical course and abolish all rates on the land.
    Mr. HARDIE: In Glasgow we have 4,000 acres in our city—[An HON. MEMBER: "Is it agricultural?"] I am asked if it is agricultural, and I might also be asked whether it is arable or grass. Since the surface of these acres is covered with old tins and broken bottles, it is very difficult to say what the character of the land is, but the owners of those acres in Glasgow are going to get relief under this Bill to help them to wait till the price gets higher by the demands of the community when we are trying to rid our city of slums. If the Bill was going to deal with the agricultural side alone, there would be no need for me to cut in on this question. Grass lands are not known in Glasgow because, even if we could get rid of the old tins and the bottles and started to put in crops, as soon as they put their heads above the ground the fumes from the chemical works at St. Rollox would lay them all dead in half an hour. [Interruption.] I am quite sure from his appearance that the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. J. Erskine) knows nothing at all about agriculture. A man who knows about agriculture in this House does not wear spats. I hope the Minister, before letting the thing go finally, will find some way of giving protection to the citizens of Glasgow, who have always had sitting on their necks, metaphorically speaking, a group of old men of the sea with a bit of land always waiting for an increase of value due to the people who care to go in for industry, and now they are going to get benefits under this Bill. I believe if the Minister of Agriculture would do something of this kind at the next election he would have his majority increased from 21, as I believe it was, to 23. I think he deserves it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Charles Roberts.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand that you, Sir, are ruling out the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Burslem and myself to leave out "one quarter." Might I put it to you that it has to be taken in conjunction with the one immediately succeeding it, and it will make the Clause read so that, the remission shall go, not to the agricultural land, but to the improvements upon the land, that is to say, buildings, agricultural machinery and other improvements. The Amendment is devised so that within the ambit of the Bill we may consider an alternative scheme to giving relief to agriculture which would not go into the pockets of the landlord, namely, a relief upon their improvements instead of a relief to the land value.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment appears to me to raise the question of land values, which is outside the scope of this Bill.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: This does not raise the question of land values. The only question it raises is whether the relief should be given on improvements or on the land which is not improved. I submit that relief on improvements upon agricultural land is within the ambit of the Bill.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: My ruling is that it is outside the ambit of the Bill. Mr. Charles Roberts.
    Mr. RILEY: Am I to take it that you pass over my Amendment, which is to provide for an appeal to a County Court against any increase of rent? In view of the fact that the purpose of the Amendment which has been passed over was to secure that the relief goes to those for whom it was intended, may I point out that the same principle was accepted in the Corn Production Act? In the previous Act, when a subsidy was voted, a provision was made that rents should not be increased.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. Mr. Charles Roberts.
    Mr. N. BUXTON: May I submit an argument in regard to the Amendment standing in my name which you have
    1428
    excluded, providing that no occupier who shall pay any person in his whole-time employment wages at a rate less than 30s. per week shall be entitled to relief under this Section?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Charles Roberts.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "quarter" ["substituted references to one quarter"], to insert the words
    "Provided that no relief shall be given under this Act in respect of any land where the gross estimated rental of the land, apart from the buildings, as determined at the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, is higher than it was for the same land as determined at the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirteen."
    This Amendment was not put down when the Bill came before the Committee, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture has not made his mind up about it. There is substance in it, and I put it forward because it comes from high authority. It is merely an adaptation of an Amendment which was moved to the principal Act by Mr. McKenna. In these circumstances, it demands the consideration of the Government. We hope soon to see Mr. McKenna as Chancellor of the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We understand that he will soon be Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he will have the task of finding the money to supply the funds for the purposes of this Bill, and we ought to know the views of the prospective Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we ought to consider the attitude which Mr. McKenna holds towards all this class of legislation. Although I have proceeded upon these lines, I have modified the rigidity of Mr. McKenna's attitude in regard to the principal Act, and I have put forward my Amendment in a much less stiff form than his original proposal. I do not suppose that everybody changes their opinions by the lapse of time, and there may be some help and guidance in learning from the opinions of the wise in the past with regard to this matter.
    Mr. McKenna's views were that this kind of legislation was not intended as a measure for the readjustment of local burdens. If so, he said it was bad, because it did not proceed on right principles. He believed the Act could only come into operation where the agricul-

    1429
    tural interests has suffered distress, and that the money should go more freely where it was wanted, and should be saved where it was not wanted. He proposed, therefore, that relief should only be given where the assessable value of the land was at least 20 per cent. below the standard at which it stood 20 years previously. I have suggested that the relief should not be given where the rent is higher than it was in 1913. This is not the Amendment to which I attach the most importance. I believe the right way to do it would be by a flat rate per acre, but that has been ruled out and we are not allowed to discuss it. If by the terms of the Financial Resolution a number of other variants have been ruled out, I do not see what we can do except to follow the proposal of Mr. McKenna and to limit the relief to where real agricultural distress is shown. That distress can be shown in the rental, because if the rental has not been reduced below where it stood in 1913, it would be very difficult to show that there is any real case of agricultural distress. If you are dealing with land which is rented at a higher rent, for instance land which during the War, as a result of the higher prices which prevailed during the War, was put up in price, and the rentals have not been reduced, it seems to me that the right remedy is not to come to the House and ask for public money, contributed by the general consumers, but to lower the rents.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member has forgotten that repairs have increased very much in cost.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have not forgotten that, and I have provided for it.
    Mr. HOHLER: It seems to me that this Amendment has nothing to do with rent. It relates to land where the gross estimated rental of the land, apart from buildings, is higher than it was in 1913. The whole of the argument is entirely out of order.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The gross estimated value must have some relation to rent.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It must be remembered that the land is not rated separately from the buildings.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think the right hon. Baronet is wrong on that point. The
    1430
    gross estimated rental is, I am sure, stated separately. Under the Act of 1896 the assessment committees are specially enjoined to separate it. I have provided that where improvements have been made, repairs, etc., or additional buildings, they would not count. I am only dealing with land apart from buildings. The Government have to show that there is some real distress. They are always standing first on one leg and then on the other. The answer will probably be, because it has already been given, that it is not a question of distress, but a question of readjustment of local burdens, and that therefore any question of the comparative value of land has to be left out of account. The whole attitude of the Government is that they are going to relieve perishing agriculture, but when illustrations have been given showing that this is not so imperative in certain respects, they fall back upon a totally different and inconsistent line of argument, namely, that they have to adjust local rating. If there is any real urgency in agricultural distress, and if it is a mere question of remedying the admitted anomalies, why be in this hurry; why do it this year?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether this is the opening of a Second Reading Debate. It is going on those lines. The Debate on the previous Amendment pointed in that direction. I cannot allow a Second Reading Debate on these Amendments.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I accept your ruling, Sir, and perhaps at a later stage there will be an opportunity of dealing with the matter. I am entitled to ask that there shall be some proof of distress or depression, as recorded in the gross estimated value of the land. That was the principle laid down by Mr. McKenna, and I think it is a sound principle. Do the Government dissent from the expressed views of their prospective colleague, or do they think that his views are as unsound as they think mine often are?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Amendment?
    Amendment not seconded.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Falconer.
    Captain BENN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Annual value of agricultural lands and heritages for county and parish rates in Scotland.)
    As from the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and during the continuance of this Act—

    (1) the annual value of all agricultural lands and heritages in Scotland shall, for the purposes of all the rates leviable by county councils and parish councils, be held to be the nearest aggregate sum of pounds sterling to one-half of the annual value of such lands and heritages as appearing in the valuation roll, subject, in the case of rates leviable by parish councils, to the deductions in pursuance of Section thirty-seven of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845:

    (2) every occupier of agricultural lands and heritages in Scotland shall be entitled, on payment of the occupier's share of any rate in respect of such lands and heritages leviable by a county council or parish council, to recover from the owner of the lands and heritages by retention out of rent or otherwise one-half of the amount so paid by him, and in respect of the amount so recovered from him the owner of any lands and heritages shall be deemed to be charged therewith for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts;

    (3) Section one of the Agricultural Rates, Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act, 1896 (hereinafter in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1896"), except the definition of the expression "agricultural lands and heritages" (including the proviso to that definition), shall cease to have effect save for the purpose of construing any enactment in winch that Section is referred to.

    Mr. FALCONER: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), after the word "leviable" ["rates leviable by"], to insert the words "on occupiers."
    6.0 P.M.
    It will be necessary, in order to understand the nature and effect of the Amendments which we intend to propose, that I should explain, briefly, the system of rating in Scotland as far as its bearing upon this Bill is concerned. It is entirely different from the English system. In considering what is right to do in Scotland hon. Members must, so far as possible, leave out of account the conditions which they have in England. In Scotland the local rates have been borne, I was going to say from all time, half by the owner and half
    1432
    by the occupier, while in England they are borne entirely by the occupier. The system in Scotland has been approved on a number of occasions. It was expressly approved by Lord Dunedin's Committee, which reported recently on the subject of local taxation in Scotland. Accordingly in 1896, when an Act was passed for Scotland practically at the same time as the English Act dealing with the question of relief of agricultural rates, the relief which was given by the Scottish Act was limited to occupiers. No relief was given to owners.
    This subject has been considered over and over again, and in no case, so far as I know, has it ever been proposed by any Commission, Committee, or Member of Parliament, or other person, in all the Debates that have taken place, that it would be justifiable to take the taxpayers' money and pay the rates of the landlord to any extent. Under the Act of 1896 what was done for the occupier was that he was assessed on three-eighths of the rental value of his holding, as appearing on what we call the valuation roll in Scotland. That is to say, the occupier paid three-eighths of the rates levied on him. He was relieved to the extent of five-eighths. The owner was not relieved at all. With regard to the deficiency which arose through the relief of the occupier to the extent of five-eights, it was provided by the Act of 1896 that that should be met by a grant from the Exchequer. That grant was estimated according to the state of affairs existing in 1895. Some adjustments were made afterwards. Ultimately, what happened was that the amount to be paid by the Exchequer in Scotland, by way of making up the deficiency, was fixed at £180,000 a year.
    Time went on and rates rose and have continued to rise until now the deficiency is £700,000. The difference between the £180,000 and the £700,000—£520,000 a year—is now borne by the other ratepayers in the district, so that the occupier is at present relieved to the extent of five-eighths of his rates, and the deficiency to the extent of £180,000 is met from the Exchequer. The balance of the deficiency, £520,000, is met by the other ratepayers in the district. That is a grossly inequitable arrangement. It was never intended. It was a blunder on the part of the Government of the day, that they should in that way impose for all time the burden of making good the deficiency in

    1433
    the agricultural occupier's rate on the other ratepayers in the district. I agree that in England they have suffered in the same way, but I am dealing now with Scotland.
    Coming to the proposals of the Bill to meet the situation, a sum estimated by the Government at £480,000 is to be provided out of the Exchequer. Of that sum, no part is to be applied towards meeting the deficiency and rectifying the blunder under which the burden of £520,000 a year was placed on the shoulders of the other ratepayers. What is proposed is that the £480,000 should go, to the extent of something between one half and two thirds, to the relief of the landlords, and that only one third should go to the relief of the occupier's rate. As regards the parish rate. I understand, though there are some adjustments, into the intricacies of which I do not ask the House to go at present, that there again two thirds are to go to the relief of the owner's rates and only one third to the relief of the occupier's rates. But there are some adjustments, and it is something rather more than one third which goes to the occupier and something rather less than two thirds which goes to the owner.
    The object of this Amendment is to limit the relief which is given under Clause 7 of the Bill, so far as Scotland is concerned, to the relief proposed by the Government to be given to the occupiers. This Amendment raises a very important question. It is not necessary, and I do not propose to enter into questions as to what is the ultimate destiny of the relief which is given to the occupier. All I would say is that from my experience there can be no doubt that on the first occasion when the rent comes to be reconsidered, both landlord and tenant will take into account the amount of the outgoings and the rates. Neither landlord nor tenant is such a fool as to fix the rent between them without taking that into account. I have been surprised to hear that the amount of outgoings from a holding is not taken into account when rents are adjusted, but I am not going to discuss that. Able and more authoritative men than I have pronounced very strongly on the subject. The present Secretary for Scotland, who, I suppose, so far as Scotland is concerned, is responsible for this Bill, used language in 1896 which makes me surprised that he should
    1434
    be to-day a partner in this Measure. I believe that Mr. McKenna also expressed himself on the Act of 1896—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the Third Reading Debate.
    Mr. FALCONER: I pass from that to the clear object of this Amendment. Are there any good grounds to justify this House in taking the taxpayers' money and applying it towards the payment of the rates of owners of agricultural land in Scotland? That is the real issue. The Government are putting their hand into the pockets of the taxpayers to pay directly to the landlord a proportion of his rates. There is no precedent for that and no authority. Of all the people who have considered this question of agricultural rates not one, so far as I have been able to find out, has been bold enough to say that it is justifiable to pay the rates to the landlord. If this proposal is supported on the ground of the hard times suffered by those engaged in agriculture through depression or legislation, that does not apply to the landlord. On the contrary, the legislation which has led to so much injustice and injury to some farmers has been to the advantage of the landlord. He has been selling his farms, raising his rents, and taking advantage of the temporary guaranteed prices, and if that is the case, why are you now to relieve him of his portion of his rates? The farmer may ask for some help, because Parliament has injured him, but the landlord can make no such claim.
    But there is another point. This payment of rates to the landlord is not going to benefit the industry of agriculture. If you pay the landlord's rates no part of that will filter down into the pockets of the farmer or the farm servant. He will be entitled to keep it all himself, and he will do so. Then there is another point. Consider the injustice which is going to be done to other ratepayers in the district. The main ground upon which the landlord or tenant farmer can appeal for relief from his rates is that at the moment the local authorities are performing services which are of a national character, and the burden of providing for them should be borne to a much larger extent than it is at present by national funds. But that applies to every other ratepayer in the district, as well as to the owner of agri-

    1435
    cultural land. The owner of a house has to pay his road rate, his education rate, and all the other rates, in just the same way as the owner of an estate or a farm. There is no ground for discrimination. It has often been said that the rental of a farm is not a fair indication of the income which a farmer gets from his farm, but in the case of a landlord that does not apply, for the rent which the landlord receives, less the outgoings for repairs, etc., which are allowed under the Scottish Act, is a true and just indication of the income which he gets from the farm. On that ground there is no reason for dealing with the owner's rates differently from the rates of other property in the district. Nor is there a material difference between them as to the benefit of the service received in respect of the rate. The owner of agricultural land gets as much benefit as the owner of other property.
    Let me put another aspect of the case The country now cannot afford to make payments of this kind to owners of land. On the Scottish Estimates recently we debated all day how money could be got for ex-service men. Would any landlord or any supporter of landlords get up in public and say that the landlord's rates must come first, and that land for the ex-service man must come second? Such a thing could not be stated. Are education and all the other services to be set aside for the benefit of the landowner? Must the public services be starved, and cannot the landlords wait even until the Commission to be set up reconsiders the whole scheme of local rating? Let me deal with answers which have been given to my proposal, so far as I have received answers at all. In the first place it is suggested that the day of great estates is passing away. I really cannot see how that affects the argument at all. But the statement has been put forward by the Scottish Office time and again. Whether you have the estate in one large block, with hundreds of farms, or whether you have individual farms, of course you have an owner and a tenant, and equity remains the same.
    Another suggestion made is that there is a partnership between the landlord and the occupier of the farm, and sometimes even the farm servant is drawn into the partnership. That is the sort of thing that it is very nice to say at a gathering
    1436
    between landlord and tenant, but there is no substance in it. There is none of the elements of partnership in the matter. I am not dealing with a limited definition of partnership. If the owner of a house fits it up for any purpose, whether that of a grocer or draper or a public house, and lets it to a tenant in order that that tenant may use it as business premises, no one suggests that that makes the owner a partner in the venture. It is the same in the case of a farm. The one thing that the tenant has to watch carefully is to protect himself against being involved in payment of too heavy a rent, or against agreeing to terms which are in the interests of the landlord and not in the interests of himself. There is a constant conflict of interests to that extent. We have in our minds the fact that in hundreds and thousands of cases the landlords have been turning out their tenants in order to sell the land. Is that the Act of a partner? If there were a partnership which came to an end in ordinary law, and one partner tried to take advantage of the other, any lawyer would say that that would be regarded as a fraud upon the partnership, and both partners would be bound to deal fairly with one another on the termination of a partnership.
    There is no business interest of the landlord, so far as the tenant is con corned, except to see that his land is well cultivated and that he gets payment of his rent. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear no more of this theory of partnership as between landlord and tenant. One of the greatest mistakes that the farmers of this country have made is that they have not treated their arrangements as matters of hard business, and have not protected, themselves as they ought to have done in questions with the landlord. If they had done so they would not have been compelled to turn out now or to buy their holdings as they have done in recent times. Another point raised was as to what would be the position of the owner-occupier in Scotland compared with the owner-occupier in England. In England the owner-occupier, of course, gets the whole of this relief. In Scotland, on the other hand, under the scheme which I have indicated, the owner-occupier would receive the five-eights relief, or six-eights now, in respect of his occupier's rate. He would also have to pay the owner's rates, and

    1437
    instead of one-fourth relief from that he would have to pay in full. When these men bought their holdings they bought them on the basis that they would have to pay the owner's rates. I do not know what the exact figures are, but I think that not one in ten of the holdings of the country is run by an owner-occupier. Are the Government, for the sake of doing something for the owner-occupier, to which he is not entitled except as a matter of generosity, to throw away public money in paying the rates of the other nine-tenths? Having regard to the obligation to use public money prudently and with discrimination, it is impossible to justify the proposal.
    Let me say how I propose to deal with the money which would be available if the landlord's rates were not relieved. There would be a sum of something like £300,000 a year. The first claim upon that sum is that justice should be done to the other ratepayers of the district. They have been bearing for years a great burden and a much more serious injustice than anything which has been done to the owner or occupier of agricultural land. The first duty is to put right the blunder committed in 1896. A very large part of that relief will go to the agricultural owners and other owners of property, and the rest of it will go to the occupiers. In that way the agricultural landlords will be getting their fair share, with other people, of this fund, and approximately equal justice will be done between them to that extent. I cannot discuss the subsequent Amendments which deal with matter, because that would be out of order. I think that as a matter of policy this proposal of the Bill is most unwise. If the landlords, when they have their party in power, are to get their rates paid, what answer are you to give to the farm servant when he asks for money to be put into his pocket out of the Exchequer? I think it is all bad.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to Second the Amendment.
    My hon. Friend has explained the situation in Scotland with regard to rating, and I do not propose to go further into that aspect of the question, but rather to support some of the arguments for the acceptance of this Amendment. I regard the proposal of the Bill to introduce for the first time a new
    1438
    principle of relict of rates for a certain class of land owners as one of its greatest defects, though I agree that the principle of the Bill is open to challenge in many other directions. We, as a House of Commons, are asked to give a decision upon a new proposition which has never yet been submitted to the House in the form in which it is in this Bill. It is proper to consider that since the 1896 Act there have been quite a number of opportunities for the reconsideration of the whole question of local taxation, and during that period every aspect of this question has been very fully discussed. It is, therefore, all the more mysterious that we should be faced at this moment with a proposal which has never yet had shape in the minds of those; who have devoted an immense, amount of research to the question in past years, and which has, indeed, been rejected by them when it was actually brought forward. The Royal Commissions and Committees included the Royal Commission on Local Taxation of 1896, which reported in the year 1902. In considering the situation in Scotland, particularly with regard to agricultural rates, it reported as follows:
    "We think that the provision contained in the Agricultural Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act, 1896 (which has been continued to 1906 by an Act of 1901), whereby the occupier of agricultural lands and heritages is exempted from payment of rates upon five-eighths of the annual value of those properties, should be continued."
    The Report also stated:
    "The agricultural owner does not, however, enjoy, and we do not propose that he should be granted, any such exemption."
    That makes it quite clear that this was a matter which the Commission had carefully considered and rejected, six years after the Act of 1896 had come into operation. I would point out to the Solicitor-General that he was wrong in the view he expressed in a former debate, that the matter had not been reconsidered during that period, as the Commission had been asked to consider and deal with it. Then we had the Departmental Committee of 1912, which never put forward this proposal at all but which submitted the view that the Act of 1896 should be continued. In 1916, we had the Selborne Committee which dealt with the matter very fully and which, in turn, substantially agreed that the only improvement under the existing system

    1439
    was to see that the gap was filled up and that no additional burden was thrown upon the ratepayers in respect of the relief which was granted. Last year two other important bodies reported upon this matter. The tribunal of investigation set up to deal with the position of the agricultural industry submitted proposals entirely different from the proposals in the Bill, and their suggestions cannot be regarded as having been met in any degree by the Measure which is now under consideration. There was also the Report of the Departmental Committee on local taxation in Scotland—the Dunedin Committee—which reported last year. It is quite true they regarded themselves as precluded from dealing with the question of extending the amount of the Imperial grant in relief of rates, but notwithstanding that, they carefully considered the position in which agriculture was placed at the time and they say, referring to the high profits of the War period:
    "It is true that for a period during the War the farmers had a term of exceptional prosperity. That has now passed and the situation from this point of view is in no way superior to the pre-War period."
    They do not suggest it is any worse, and they proceed:
    "We are therefore of opinion that no change ought to be made."
    It is quite obvious from both the majority and minority Reports that the whole question had been carefully considered by the Committee as to whether there should be some change. Therefore, instead of proceeding on the lines of any considered view of any body which has discussed this matter during the years since the Act of 1896 came into operation, the Government are proceeding directly in the teeth of any recommendations which have been made by introducing the proposals which we now challenge.
    I regard it as most unwise and undesirable, in view of the pledge which the Government have given to this House, namely, that they are immediately about to introduce legislation of a comprehensive character dealing with the whole question of rating reform, that they should here and now commit us to a new principle, which will have to be very carefully considered in regard to its further extension. I would refer to the actual words used by the Minister of Health on the Second Reading of the
    1440
    Bill. He referred to the pledge given in the King's Speech, with which we are all familiar, and he went on to say:
    "Hon. Members will be interested to know that our examination has now progressed so far that I hope very shortly to be able to circulate a draft of a Bill on valuation and rating reform to the local authorities and to ask for their observations thereon with a view if possible to introducing the Measure itself next year."
    The right hon. Gentleman was asked, would that refer to Scotland, and he said "Yes, probably," adding:
    "That Bill will contain permanent provisions in regard to the rating of agricultural land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1923; col. 1796, Vol. 164.]
    In view of those statements the Government have no right to ask us to insert this provision in this Bill at this time. Why have they not circulated it along with their proposals to the local authorities? Had they done so they would have received a very quick answer. We have had representations from parish councils, and other bodies in Scotland, indicating that they regard it as a great injustice that nothing is to be done to fill up the gap created owing to the deficiency in the 1896 Act before any steps are taken to deal with further relief. The Government are committing the country to a principle which may be extended in connection with the permanent relief of agricultural owners in respect of rates. Do they propose that this proposal is to be made permanent? Is it part of their permanent scheme? Are we not entitled to know just as well as the local authorities, to whom the Bill is to be circulated, what the permanent proposals are to be, and whether or not this is one of them? If they intend to commit themselves to this principle, it is a matter on which the House is entitled to information. I have good authority for the view that in the introduction of a new principle, such as the relief of landlords' rates, you should act very cautiously. The Secretary for Scotland, when a Member of this House, referred to this question of doles specifically, and during the Debate in 1896 he said:
    "A dole was to be given to agriculture to enable it to tide over the time before the Government inquiry into the burden of local taxation was concluded. But that was not the way to begin a permanent reform of local taxation—to give a dole for five years and rigorously exclude that class from benefit which paid the taxation."

    1441
    That is exactly our case to-day. You are dealing with a limited class of landowners and excluding those who should be considered in relation to general relief. I have no desire to exclude any landlord from any fair reduction of rates. I think they deserve it along with other members of the community, but they should not be placed in a privileged position. There are many other classes of landlords besides those who own agricultural land. There are men who own houses and other forms of real property, and it is most desirable that in these matters there should be a sense of fairness and justice all round. I think I am not exaggerating the case when I say that if the question were put to many agricultural landlords themselves, as to whether they desire to take a preference over other classes of landlords or ratepayers, the answer would be that they would consider it a great mistake to do so. If I may trouble the House with another quotation, that view was very strongly expressed by the present Secretary for Scotland when in this House on the same occasion to which I have already referred he said:
    "He objected to this dole in his own interest as a landowner as well as in the interests of justice."
    We all recognise that he was a very good landlord, and therefore this opinion comes from him with all the greater force.
    "He believed the landowners of Scotland had endeavoured during the past 20 trying years to do their duty by the tenants and on the whole, he thought they had done well …. but he did not think that their character would be raised by the receipt of this relief. Their public character was of more importance than 5 per cent. on their rents. He did not think the grant would give any real relief to agriculture."
    That view would be reflected by a good many other landlords who believe that they are being put in an unfortunate and false position in regard to the public and the ratepayers generally by this proposal. I do not think this is going to be a form of relief which will benefit agriculture in the way intended. We have no security that the money is going to be applied towards the industry or towards the relief of the occupier or the farm servant. There are many other ways in which the industry could be benefited, but it would not be in order to go into them now. I might however suggest that the crying need of the industry is that there should be something in the form of security of
    1442
    tenure for those engaged in it and there is also the question of reduction of transport rates and of wasteful public expenditure involving heavy taxation. I content myself with this concluding argument. If you do as the Government proposes and raise an issue before the country as to whether the landlord class—those who represent agricultural land particularly—are to receive a special privilege while the ratepayers are still to bear the heavy burden of the deficiency which they carry at the present moment, you will then challenge an issue which will arouse opinion from one end of the country to the other. We had the experience the other day of what happened in connection with the Land Valuation Clause of the Finance Bill. To-day you are loading the dice again and you are loading them on this occasion in favour of the agricultural landlord. By so doing, you are in breach of your trust towards the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country, whose interests should be considered together, and in seeking to secure the friendship of a particular class who may give you support at the moment, you have alienated the feelings of a much larger class who believe that an injustice is being done to them.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I am not going to detain the House for more than a few minutes. Indeed, although I have been a Scottish representative here for a period of 40 years—with a brief intermission—I have never, I regret to say, shaken off the congenital inability of an Englishman to tread with anything like a sense of security amid the treacherous morasses—indeed, I might almost say the bottomless abysses—of the Scottish law of rating. It is a sealed book, and though I have tried my best, in the interval of other occupations, to acquire a little knowledge of it, I should be sorry to submit myself to examination on it by any competent authority. The issue raised here does not, however, depend on technicalities of Scottish law. I remember very well the Debates on both the English and the Scottish Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, and I believe I took part in them. We opposed that legislation at the time, and I do not think it has been of any real permanent advantage to agriculture in any part of the United Kingdom. At any rate, one thing is clear so far as concerns Scotland where

    1443
    the rates—which is not the case in England—have from time immemorial been divided between owner and occupier. So far as Scotland is concerned—and the question can only arise in Scotland—there was no proposal then, and there has, been, so far as I know, no proposal since, to give relief to the owner. The occupier got his relief, I quite agree, in a fixed sum. If the policy is to be continued and is inadequate to the altered circumstances of the case, there may be—and I will assume, for the purposes of my argument, that there is—a case for adding to the relief to which the Scottish occupier is supposed to be entitled; but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar) has shown, in, I think, a very conclusive speech, that this matter has been inquired into over and over again, both before and since the Act of 1896, and I am not aware that any among the various Commissions and Committees which have investigated the case ever made any such proposal as that which is contained in this Bill.
    I doubt very much whether the Scottish landlords themselves, the landlords of agricultural land in Scotland, desire anything of the kind. I remember very well that my Noble Friend, as he is now, Lord Novar, when he sat with us on the Opposition side of the House, himself a Scottish landowner of large possessions, disclaimed any such desire on the part of himself or the members of his class. I do not think there is any demand from Scottish landlords, nor am I in the least satisfied that the money which it is proposed to hand over to them will of necessity go to the benefit of agriculture. This is not a case such as might be put forward in regard to England, where you have to trace the ultimate economic incidence of relief granted in the first instance to one class and distributed over a number of classes. This is a direct and absolute subsidy. It goes, without any possibility of interception, straight, into the pocket of the agricultural landlord. You have no security whatever that it will be spent for the improvement of agriculture, or that it will become part of the common fund of this imaginary partnership, which is always trotted out on these occasions on the Floor of this House, between the landlord and the farmer, and in which, I observe, the labourer is very rarely included; it is
    1444
    difficult to see how he is going to benefit from this subsidy.
    I represent, as the House knows, an urban constituency, and my constituents are not interested in this matter as ratepayers, or, indeed, as agricultural owners—so far as I know, the amount of agricultural land which is within the ambit of the Parliamentary burgh of Paisley is not very considerable—but they are interested as taxpayers. That is the common interest which not only Scotsmen but Englishmen share, and if instead of making a gift at the expense of the taxpayer to a limited section of Scottish landlords, it is far more in consonance with the principles of equity and the real interests of agriculture, amongst other interests, that it should go to the relief of the other ratepayers, if, indeed, you will not expend it, as you might very well do, upon purposes such as that which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer), a purpose which is very urgent and which has been grievously delayed in Scotland—namely, the settlement of ex-service men on the land. I regard this—and I have risen to make this brief protest because it seems to me to be a very serious matter of principle—as a flagrant violation of the rights of the taxpayer in the interests of a small and limited class, from which I cannot see—I have read the Debates and listened to them—that anybody has pointed out that any real advantage is likely to accrue to the community at large. Therefore, I think it is a waste of the taxpayers' money, and it is the duty of the House of Commons, as the custodian of the taxpayers' interest, to record its solemn and emphatic protest.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: After the very clear and explicit statement of the intricate methods by which this proposal is arrived at, given to the House by the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer), I do not propose to attempt to cover the same ground. It was all argued out in the Standing Committee. The Government, through the Solicitor-General for Scotland, has admitted the facts, and there is no purpose served now in confusing either English or Scottish Members about the three-eighths, and the two-eighths, and the one-fourth, and so on. The naked fact is this, that under this Bill as it stands now, the landlords of

    1445
    Scotland are going to get a present of £300,000 per annum out of the £480,000 which the Government allege that they are giving to the relief of agriculture. That is the cold fact of the matter. The farmers, the agricultural occupiers, who up to now have thought they were going to get some relief, are going to get relief to their local rates to the extent of only £180,000 out of the £480,000 that the general taxpayer is finding. The landowner gets £300,000 per annum, which is just the amount of money you have taken away from the education of the children—£300,000 as a gift to the landowner, and only £180,000 to agriculture. I do not suppose that on the Report stage it would be in order to trace where that £180,000 will ultimately go, but I think the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) gave a hint as to where he thought it would go, and I agree with him that the £180,000 will sooner or later go into rent.
    There is no doubt whatever about it. It may go indirectly. It may be that the landowner will now say to the farmer, "You are relieved of your rates to the extent of £180,000; you will therefore undertake the repairs to the farmsteading yourself." It may be done indirectly, but when the lease runs out and new arrangements come to be made, undoubtedly all past experience teaches us that the £180,000 that you are giving nominally to the agricultural occupier will find its way into rent. But what justification have you for giving £300,000 directly to the landowner—£300,000 per annum to the most useless social class in the country? It was argued by the Solicitor-General for Scotland in the Standing Committee that the landowner provided capital. I agree that he drains the land sometimes; he fences sometimes; he repairs the steadings sometimes; and sometimes he does not, but there is no distinction drawn in this Bill by the Government between the landlord who provides capital and the landlord who does not. All have to come into the bank. It is: "So long as this Government last, come with open hands, for the treasure is here. Come and take your share of it. Come where the booty is easily accessible so long as a Conservative Government are in power." If you had a Scots National Parliament, the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, the
    1446
    two Scottish representatives now on the Government Bench, would not dare to go to a Scottish National Assembly with a proposal such as this. They do not dare take this proposal to a Scottish Grand Committee of this House. They tack this surreptitiously on to an English Bill—because it is an English Bill—in the sure and certain knowledge that if they did not do that they would never get it through a Scottish Grand Committee.
    I cannot understand whether the deer forest proprietor is to share in this swag. [An HON MEMBER: "Of course he is."] Well, the Solicitor-General for Scotland says not. If the deer forest proprietor winters sheep on his deer forest, does that deer forest become an agricultural subject? Does it then entitle the deer forest proprietor to come in for a share of the £300,000? If I know the landlords of Scotland—
    Mr. J. ERSKINE: You do not!
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I know something about them. I did not know there were deer forests in Hanover Square, but if we in Scotland know anything whatever about the landlords of Scotland—and we know something from cruel past experience—we know that this £300,000, some of it immediately, but all of it ultimately, will land into that omnivorous maw. During the sheep boom, land rents rose in Scotland from 600 to 800 per cent. Did they ever go back when the boom was over? The poor peasants of Strathnaver were sent out to unreclaimed land at £2 10s. an acre, and when they reclaimed that land the Sutherland family jumped the rents to £20 an acre. During the Highland clearances, when the land was cleared for sheep, the rent in 32 years jumped from £700—
    Major WHELER: Did the hon. Member say the rent jumped to £20 an acre?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: No, £2 10s.
    Major WHELER: The hon. Member said the rent jumped to £20 an acre.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg pardon; I meant a holding, and if I said per acre, I was wrong. I ought to have said that the peasants who were sent out to the unreclaimed land at Strathnaver paid £2 10s., not per acre, but for their holding, and when they reclaimed this land the rents of their holdings were jumped

    1447
    by the Sutherland family to £20 per holding. That is a fairly good jump. On the Glengarry estate the land rent was jumped from £700 to £5,000. On the Sutherland estates in 1862 the land rent was £35,000, and in 1882 it was £73,000, but it never went back. During the Napoleonic wars the land rents in Scotland rose, but there is no instance known to us where the land rent ever went back, and there is no evidence whatever that as a result of the remission of rates given by the Act of 1896 the landlords of Scotland were one whit more considerate of their tenantry than they were before. Two hon. Members behind me have referred to the fact that the Government had no warrant from any Committee whatever for these proposals. If they had any warrant, it was not from the Dunedin Committee. I hold the Report of that Committee in my hand, and the summary is even stronger than the words quoted by the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer). Page 31 of that Report recommends that the Agricultural Rates Act should remain in force without alteration, but that the exemptions from rates should not be extended. That is quite definite, and that is the report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances of local taxation in Scotland. That Committee has reported, but its Report has not yet been acted upon. We are waiting for the Scottish Office to act on that Report, and to bring in a Measure for redressing inequalities of local taxation in Scotland. This little £300,000 trick is inserted in an English Act.
    7.0 P.M.
    There is other land beside deer forests about which we should like to have information, and there are other people who are holding up land. For instance, are people who are holding up land for the more or less hypothetical Forth and Clyde Ship Canal to get relief; is that land agricultural land? We ought to have a definite answer to that. We ought to be told exactly what proportion of this relief is going to land in the neighbourhood of the big towns. Up to now we have been told nothing, and we only screwed the information out, as a result of cross-examination in the Committee, that the sum which the owners in Scotland are to receive is £300,000. I should like the Solicitor-General for Scotland
    1448
    or the Under-Secretary to come up to Scotland and attempt to justify that policy in any constituency. They cannot do it, though, as an hon. Member says, we will pay their fare.
    There is simply no public opinion whatever in Scotland in favour of this thing. The landowners have not had the fairness to come out and argue in favour of it. All that has been done has been that a surreptitious dive has been made at the national Treasury. If there is any independence of spirit, or any real desire in this House to safeguard the national Treasury, then the Clause as it stands will not be approved, but the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfar will be accepted. It is impossible, on the Report stage, to say all that one would care to say about the demerits of this particular Clause, but I should like to ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland why it is that this proposal has never been publicly made in Scotland; why no attempt has been made to justify it by any Member of the Government at any public meeting; why the newspapers have been silent about it; and why we can only wring out the information about what I would call class graft in the Committee room upstairs? No defence whatever has been attempted in public of this action, which I regard as the most barefaced dive at the public funds that I have seen in my day or generation.
    Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: I feel rather an interloper in entering the field when a Scottish Debate is in progress. There are, however, one or two points of general interest, and we English Members are interested in this matter because this £300,000, which is going to the Scottish landowner, is coming from the British taxpayer, and our duty, as guardians of the public purse, is to see it does not go to the wrong quarter. There are two possible reasons why this relief should be given to the Scottish landlords. One is, that where he is himself the owner and occupier, as occupier he requires relief. The other reason is, that his rent roll has decreased very much, while his expenses have been increased. I have taken out the figures of rent rolls for England and Scotland since 1895, and I find that the rentals in England of agricultural land have fallen by 10 per cent. between 1895 and 1915. The figures for Scotland show that they have fallen in exactly the same

    1449
    proportion—10 per cent.—so that, if you put the reason for relief on the ground of a fall in rental, then the English landlord has exactly the same claim to consideration as the Scottish landlord.
    I tried to get the figures for the owner-occupier, but I could not get them for Scotland. In England, as we all know, the owner-occupying area rose from 2,750,000 acres to 5,000,000 acres, out of 26,000,000 acres, between 1914 and 1921. This year, in the last Return, it had fallen by about 1,250,000 acres, to 3,750,000 acres, out of 26,000,000 acres. Therefore the area held by the owner-occupier in England is between one-seventh and one-eighth. If we take the same percentage for Scotland, the problem of the owner-occupier is comparatively a small one, and in order to give the relief required to the owner-occupier, you are going to give six-sevenths of the relief to the landlord. It would seem a much easier proposition to give your relief to the owner-occupier and to exclude the landlord. There is no reason why it should not be given to the owner-occupier, if it be desirable, but I am quite certain that the House, on Second Reading, had no idea at all that anything up to £320,000 per annum—not a lump sum—was to be given to the Scottish landowners out of public funds, and, as an English Member, I desire to protest most strongly against that being done.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I am moved to intervene in the Debate, not because I have any knowledge, and still less because. I have any interests in this matter. I have no interests, either as a landlord or as an occupier, but I cannot listen to the arguments which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite, some of which I am certain are fallacious, without making some protest. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Simpson) spoke of the great increase of the owner-occupier in England, and jumped to the conclusion that the owner-occupier had increased in a similar proportion in Scotland.
    Mr. SIMPSON: I do not think I said that. I said the only figures I could give were the English figures, and that if one could accept that proportion for Scotland, the result would be so and so.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Even if the increase of owner-occupiers were the same in Scotland, the hon. Member has quite left out
    1450
    of account the fact that an enormous amount of land in Scotland is held by smallholders and crofters, where the burden on the owners is quite beyond, anything that is known in England at all. I myself have known in the olden days many instances of landlords who have been very greatly overburdened. The burden of education is tremendous, and it falls, nominally, half on the occupier and half on the owner, but in the case of the crofters it falls entirely on the owners, because the crofters do not pay anything. So much was this so that I remember on one occasion that a landlord, the owner of one of the islands, came to me and said, "I should be only too delighted to help you in carrying on this education work and to give up my property altogether if you would take the burden of it off my back." That is not a fable; it is a fact. I know of other persons I could mention, both men and women, landed proprietors, whose burdens are unbearable. There is Lady Gordon-Cathcart who, from her island property, draws no rental whatever, and who, if she were not the owner of a large city property in Edinburgh, could not carry on. Some hon. Members think you would get a better economic system if you abolished the landlord altogether. Where would the burden of the rates in those districts then fall? [HON. MEMBERS: "On land values!"] It is utterly impossible for the crofters to bear them. The burden on the landlord is incredible, and, after all, the idea of an agricultural agreement between the landlord and the tenant has been scoffed at by the Mover of the Amendment, by the Seconder, and by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). They really think there is no such thing as a common interest between the landlord and the tenant.
    One landlord told me that he knew he had not been able, as a landlord, to carry out his proper duty in regard to repairs, not because he was not willing to do so, but absolutely because he had not got the money. He said, "I cannot find the money to carry out the repairs, which I know I ought to do. If I get the relief under this Bill, I shall feel it my duty to devote at least a large part of it to proper repairs." Is it not likely that the ordinary law of supply and demand will operate here? If a landlord is known not to carry out his repairs, after this

    1451
    relief, then his tenants will go away and find another landlord. There is much more competition for tenants than there is for landlords, and if a landlord who has hitherto, by reason or the heavy burdens which have lain on his estate, been unable to carry out the repairs which, from time immemorial have fallen on the landlord, now that he gets this relief, does not carry out his duty, I am quite sure that a neighbouring landlord, who does his duty, will carry off his tenants. If the landlord and the farmer tenant in the long run share the benefits which accrue to one another, the law of supply and demand will act. It is not fair that hon. Members opposite should shut their eyes to the fact that there is and there has been for some years a burden of unusually heavy loss falling on the owners of these vast, thinly populated districts where the profits of farming are very small indeed, and where the landlord has been obliged to put his hand into both pockets to carry out what is necessary. I have no interest personally in this matter. I never had an acre of land, but I have watched the economic position as much as I could do, and I am perfectly certain that those who look at the matter fair-mindedly will be bound to realise that landlords of recent times have had very severe pressure.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who has been for so long a Scottish Member, has confessed that as an Englishman he has found it hard to understand the intricacies of Scottish rating. I have had to give some little study to this matter and I know that there are certain parts of our rating system not easy to understand, and that are certainly hard to explain in a clear manner to any audience, however keen and quick-witted. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Simpson), speaking as an English Member, asked me by what right was this money going to Scottish landowners when none was given to English? That is a highly illuminating observation and shows the difference that, in my view, has vitiated all the discussion this afternoon, for in England all the rates are paid by the occupier, while in Scotland they are paid, half by the owner and half by the occupier. If you do not keep that conseideration closely in view while dealing with this matter, I do not think you are
    1452
    in a position to reach a very satisfactory conclusion. The grant has been referred to as a class grant. It is stated that silence has been maintained in Scotland with regard to the proposals of the Bill. My noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland made a speech on the matter in Edinburgh. The hon. Member has surely forgotten that? He also said that the Scottish Press had been silent in the matter. I was fortunate enough to read a very illuminating article in the "Glasgow Herald," which dealt with a letter that my hon. Friend had written to that paper, and the article pointed out in a very clear way how unfair it was to state that two-thirds of the money of the new grant, or the new fund, was given to the landowners without keeping in view also that under the law existing till now the owner got no relief at all, and the occupier only paid rates on three-eighths of his rateable basis. Subsequently also in the "Scotsman" I read another article, so that, so far from the Scottish Press having been silent on a question which is, I think, of some benefit to the agricultural interest of Scotland, the matter has been closely canvassed.
    Under the law as it now stands the agricultural owner pays rates on the full amount of his valuation, and the agricultural occupier pays only on three-eighths. What our proposals in this Bill amount to are that in future the landowner is to pay on three-quarters, and that the occupier is to have his rateable basis reduced from three-eighths to two-eighths. In order to do this more money is required. The final result will be that the owner only gets relief on a quarter and the occupier on three-quarters. That is the final result, that the occupiers of Scotland, the farmers of Scotland, are in a better position than the agricultural occupier in England. In England the occupier gets a rebate of three-quarters of his rates on land only; in Scotland he gets the relief on the three-quarter basis both on the land and the buildings. I desire to make these points clear.
    It is perfectly idle to criticise the Bill on the ground of the new grant without keeping in view the position of the law at the present moment, otherwise the criticism is not, in my view, fair. It seems to be the view of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer) that while

    1453
    the rates are paid half by the owner and half by the occupier that the owner's rates do not affect the agricultural industry at all. Therefore, it seems to me that the English system of rating the occupiers is a profound mistake. If all the rates in England could be shifted from the occupier to the owner the agricultural industry would be free from all burden whatsoever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, that would be the result as some hon. Members conceive it, but surely it is absurd to contend that rates imposed on the owners of agricultural lands do not affect the agricultural industry, and are not a burden on it. It has been said that there is no interest of or partnership between the landowner and the tenant, but it seems to be obvious that there is. The landowner provides the buildings, he has to do the drainage, and the fencing. If his means are straitened, then that cannot be adequately done, and the whole industry of agriculture suffers. The landlord has to pay his rates out of the rents which he receives.
    References have been made this afternoon on several occasions to the reports of the Dunedin Committee. They point out very clearly the general effect of the increase of rates in Scotland. Then they go on to say:
    "Besides what may be termed the general pressure which affects all occupiers as well as owners, evidenced by such figures, it may not be amiss to show how this increase presses on particular classes of owners. In the appendix will be found a table showing the effect on owners of agricultural estates in various counties in Scotland. As the rise in the rates there shown synchronises with the rise in the public burdens also shown in the table, and with the rise in imperial taxation, the increased cost of upkeep, and the higher rate of interest on mortgages, against all of which there could be no increase of return from lands under lease, it is evident that the margin left on an agricultural estate is in most cases very small indeed, and that the great increase in rates presses very hardly on that margin."
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: What recommendation did they make?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: They recommended that the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, be continued. That is their view, but it was quite out of their purview to consider any relief of the owners' rates, as that would involve an additional charge upon the Exchequer. If any hon. Member cares to
    1454
    look at the terms of that Committee he will see that they are not entitled to make a suggestion which would involve a grant from the Exchequer. As regards the Royal Commission of 1902, it is true they do not recommend that there should be any reduction in the rating basis as regards owners. It was impressed upon them that the agricultural policy of the Agricultural Rates Acts of 1896 was a mistaken policy. They, however, expressed the view that considering relatively how heavy were the burdens on agricultural land as against other rateable properties that the Act of 1896 should be continued. There was a passage quoted by my hon. Friend which did not propose that the relief should be extended to the owners, but that was more in the nature of an obiter dictum in reference to the view pressed upon them that the whole system of the relif of agricultural rats should be abandoned.
    Mr. MILLAR: Were they not considering whether or not there should be any alteration in connection with agricultural rating?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The question they were really considering was whether or not the policy of the 1806 Act should be continued, and, in view of the very heavy burdens which were imposed by the rates on the industry of agriculture, they unhesitatingly declared themselves in favour of the continuance of the policy of the Act. But, they added,
    "They did not propose any further extension."
    As to the Committee of 1911, it is known that all they were appointed to do was to inquire into the changes which had taken place in Imperial and local taxation.
    Let me now come to the question of the owner-occupier. It must be obvious to anyone, who has lived in Scotland of recent years, that there has been an immense amount of selling, and large tracts of land have been sold. The system of the great estate had many merits, was well carried on, and so enabled Scottish agriculture, as many hon. Members are well aware, to become better probably, I will not say than England, but better a great deal than the agricultural systems in many other countries in the world. That system has been largely replaced by a system of owner-occupier. In the

    1455
    Scottish newspapers we see reports of the sales of estates, purchased in many cases by the occupiers. My hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire does not propose to give the owner occupier qua owner any relief at all. He proposes that the owner occupier should as regards these rates which he pays as occupier be in the same position as we put in our Bill exactly, that he should pay on a one-fourth basis, but as we know, in Scotland, the rates fall half on the owner and half on the occupier. The owner occupier qua owner has to pay the full rates! Why? Do my fellow Scottish Members desire that the owner occupier in Scotland should be in a position substantially worse than the owner occupier in England and only get half the relief given in England? My hon. Friend's position is that the rates imposed on agricultural owners do not affect the industry at all. Let him go and say that to the owner occupier. Let him tell that to the man who has to keep his buildings in order and look after his draining and fencing. Let him go and say to such a man: "It is right we are going to give you relief to the extent of three-quarters on those rates you pay as occupier; it is true that you will have to pay full rates as owner" One has only got to look at the matter in that light and it will be seen that the rates imposed on the owner, whether it be on the occupying owner or the other owner, do fall on the industry, and if the landlord has no money, as shown by the statistics of many of these estates, to really keep the land up properly, then the industry of agriculture suffers. That can be tested very clearly by the position of the owner occupier.
    Mr. SIMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the area of the owner occupiers?
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I cannot give the area, but the last figures I have as to the numbers show that there were 7,800, an increase of a couple of thousand since 1914.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can you tell us the acreage?
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I am afraid I cannot. The purchase by owner occupiers is going on every day in Scotland, and if any class of the community is deserving of en-
    1456
    couragement it is the owner occupier. What has been the strength of France? It is because she has such a large number of owner occupiers. In our own country, with its immense urban population, we want to encourage the owner occupier to acquire the land and to settle on the land. Representing as I do the Scottish Office, I do not see why my hon. Friend should propose an Amendment which has the effect of allowing to the owner occupier only half the relief that his brother owner occupier in England gets. I am aware that any proposal of this kind as regards Scotland lends itself to an attack that the English proposals are not exposed to, but the reason is the difference in the Scottish rating system, a system which was favourably reported upon by the Dunedin Committee. If you are going to give Scottish agriculture the same amount of relief as you are going to give English agriculture as afforded by this Bill, then you must relieve the people who are paying agricultural rates, otherwise Scottish agriculture will not be receiving the same treatment as English agriculture, and it is obvious that the proportion of rates to be borne by the agricultural industry in Scotland, as in England, has been, and is, very excessive in proportion to their ability to pay. That is stated in the Report of the Dunedin Committee, and also in the Report of the Commission of 1902.
    Let me take another point. A great fuss has been made of the fact that owing to our Scottish rating system of half-owner and half-occupier relief should be given in this way. What about all the grants given in Scotland such as public health grants, police grants and others. These go to relieve the ratepayers. Take for example the police grant. Each grant given by the Exchequer benefits owners as well as occupiers. The system is that the owner pays half and the occupier pays half. Every public health grant, and every grant for roads or police allows every ratepayer to benefit just in the same way as this grant benefits owners in Scotland. In Scotland the police rate is raised in burghs from the occupiers and therefore the grant in regard to the police in relief of the rates is an advantage to the occupiers in the burghs. In the counties it so happens that fully 60 per cent. of the police rates is paid by the owners as ratepayers share in that. You cannot give any relief towards rates in

    1457
    Scotland without some of the relief going to the owners who are ratepayers. In looking at the report of the Dunedin Committee I find that in regard to the incidence of rating they declare that they found the matter very obscure, and after going thoroughly into the matter they say that they are unable to form any definite opinion. There is no question more difficult of ascertainment than the final incidence of an increase in a rate, or to find out where the benefit really goes when relief is given.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer) proposes to deal with finis matter in a different way. He proposes to put the occupier in the same position as he is under this Bill, and to use the rest of the money for filling up the shortage created by the operation of the 1896 Act. The hon. Member explains that the grant in 1896 was fixed on the basis of the rates in that year, and that they have steadily increased, so that now there is a large shortage. My hon. Friend says that he will have two-thirds of the grant available to use for this purposes, and he proposes to use this balance to fill up the shortage. He can do that to the extent of 60 per cent. Take an average county with 64 per cent. of agricultural valuation. He now says that money is being put into the pockets of the owners, but he seeks to use this money in a way which will accrue to the benefit of the owners. The owners get some 60 per cent. of the money under his suggested proposals and the agricultural owner will get 40 per cent.
    Mr. FALCONER: My point was that the owners would share along with the other ratepayers in the relief that would be got from the Act of 1906. I have no against the landlords, and I want them to get their share.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I am trying to show that, under the hon. Member's scheme, relief to the extent of 60 per cent. will go to the owner. I think I have gone over most of the points that have been raised in the speeches, and I ask hon. Members to dismiss prejudice from their minds, and keep firmly in view the difference between the rating systems in Scotland and England, and in doing that, to realise the heavy burden borne by agriculture according to its ability to pay. I ask my
    1458
    Scottish colleagues, in view of these facts, not to support a proposal which would put the agricultural industry in Scotland in a worse position than in England.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The Solicitor-General for Scotland has not in my opinion met the arguments which have been put before the House. The statement that was made, and the position put forward, was that this question differs entirely from the English question; that it means altering Scottish laws and in fact an alteration in the Scottish legal system. Instead of meeting that argument and dealing with it before the Scottish Grand Committee the Solicitor-General brings it before the Committee upstairs on an English Bill.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I think my hon. Friend has had this point explained to him before. The Parish Budget is made out at the end of this month; therefore it is necessary that this Bill should be passed into law before that date.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The Solicitor-General must realise as a Scottish Member and a Scottish Law Officer the difficulties of this problem, and he must know that any Bill of a controversial character like this should have been sent before the Scottish Grand Committee. He must realise that a question of this kind is a strongly controversial part of the Bill, and it ought to have gone before a Scottish Grand Committee. This matter of relieving agriculture has been in the mind of the Government for some time, and the usual excuse we get is that time is so short that we must get this Bill through by a particular date, otherwise it cannot be made operative. It is about time that sort of thing was stopped by this Government, and it is time they gave hon. Members an opportunity of considering such Bills properly, and particularly Scottish Bills.
    Here is a Bill covering six and a half pages. Three of those pages are taken up with Scottish matters and three pages make alterations in already existing Scottish Acts of Parliament. You now propose to alter those Acts in an English Bill when they are Acts which went before the Scottish Grand Committee. You are now asking a Committee consisting mainly of English Members to vote upon questions which are purely Scottish. This is

    1459
    not treating Scotland fairly, and the Solicitor-General and the Prime Minister know quite well the reason why they did not send this Measure before the Scottish Grand Committee. Why was the reason not given to this House? The real reason is that such proposals as are contained in the section of this Bill referring to Scotland would never have got through a Scottish Grand Committee in this House. That is the real reason why these Clauses have not been sent before a Scottish Grand Committee to be discussed. This intricate system of Scottish rating the Solicitor-General admits cannot be understood by English Members, and yet he sends a question of Scottish rating before a Committee the majority of which is composed of English Members.
    The Solicitor-General tells us that the owner-occupiers have increased very largely recently, and he gave us the figures, but those figures are of no use without the acreage, because they really convey no information. It is simply intimating to the House that so many more people have acquired land, and no statement is made as to the amount of land acquired by these people. We do not know whether each of these individuals has bought half an acre, one acre, 20 acres, 200 acres or 300 acres, and until we get the figures of the acreage that has changed hands together with the increased number of people who have become owner-occupiers, the figures which the Solicitor-General has given us are of no use whatever. Regarding the quotation he gave from the Report of the Dunedin Committee, he thought he had scored a point against hon. Members who had previously quoted that Report, but he forgot the recommendation of that Committee. In spite of what was said in the text of their Report, when they weighed up the pros and cons of the whole situation, they recommended no alteration.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: They could not do otherwise; it was outside their scope.
    Mr. MACLEAN: That makes our case all the stronger. If this involved an Exchequer grant, and was outside the scope remitted to the Dunedin Committee, then the Government, in bringing this in, is anticipating that which they themselves announced in the Speech from the Throne. They have broken their
    1460
    pledge, and they are bringing in an alteration in rating that is going to be applicable only to one part of the country, whereas their suggested method was the introduction of a Measure which was to apply to the whole country. They have broken away, in fact, from the programme which they outlined to this House at the beginning of the Session. It is quite true that the question of Imperial grants and Exchequer grants was outside the scope of the Committee. But is it not also outside the scope, to a certain extent, of this Government at the present moment.
    Members of this House seated on the benches behind the Solicitor-General for Scotland have time and again denounced subsidies. When it was a case of a subsidy to a miner or a housebuilder they denounced it; when it was a case of a subsidy to this or that form of industry they denounced it; but to-night we find them rallying behind the Solicitor-General for Scotland and voting for a subsidy not because it is going to benefit agricultural labourers, not because it is going to give them the advantage of higher wages or better living accommodation, but because it means giving £300,000 to their own friends. Subsidies are bad when it is a question of handing them to workmen. In such circumstances they are evil, but they are all right when it means handing the money over to your friends, and that is what right hon. Gentlemen opposite are more concerned about to-day. They are not troubling about fostering agriculture. The Conservative party has always been a landlords' party; it has always played up the interests of the landlord as against the interests of those in the towns, and this particular Section of the Bill which we are now discussing is just another indication of the situation as far as the Government are concerned. They think we have got back to pre-War conditions when those who are in power can take advantage of their power to add to their possessions by robbing—because, after all, it is robbing—the people of this country for the benefit of the very small number of owners in Scotland at the present time. Indeed, they are not all in Scotland; some of them are absentee landlords in London, who spend only two months in a year on their Scottish estates. The and learned Gentleman has made some suggestion with regard to crofters. I

    1461
    want to know if the owners of land, upon which crofts are situated are to participate in this grant.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I pointed out in Committee upstairs that the estates were mixed and only in part crofts. They are of a varied character. In the definition Clause of the Act of 1896 it is stated that the Act does not apply to land used exclusively or mainly for sport.
    Mr. MACLEAN: That is beside my question; I am asking if the landowners who have crofts on their estates are to participate in this grant. Suppose, for instance, an estate is composed half of crofts and half of farms. Is the owner of that land to receive a concession upon the whole of the rateable value of this land, or only on that part which is divided up into farms? Is that portion which is devoted to crofts to be exempted from the provisions of this Bill? If any portion of the land is let out in crofts is that portion to be exempted?
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I have explained; it is not.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The owner of the land does nothing to improve the crofts; he does not fence or drain them; he does absolutely nothing to improve the land, and yet you are allowing him to participate in the benefits of this particular concession. You are making him a gift of money when he is doing absolutely nothing to improve agriculture or to help the work that is being done on the crofts. Hon. Members opposite object, possibly, to the strong terms we use when we describe this process as downright robbery. I say it is a sheer robbery of the people of this country; it cannot be described in any other terms. I am surprised that so soon after the establishment of a Conservative Government, the Government should show its hand so openly. It has so long camouflaged its purposes that one cannot help being surprised when it so clearly shows its hand. It seems to me that the Conservative, like the leopard, never changes his spots. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has no spots."] Then he is black all over, I suppose. I am glad to have that admission. I protest, as a Scottish Member, against, this robbing of the people of the country in the interest of a class. This is sheer
    1462
    class legislation. I suppose one cannot expect anything but class legislation from a Conservative Government. Hon. Members opposite complain about our preaching class hatred and class war. [An HON. MEMBER: "So you do."]
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid controversy will develop should the hon. Member continue on this line.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am protesting against this Bill as a piece of class legislation and that probably led to an interruption by the hon. Member opposite. I am not concerned about that interruption; we can answer it on platforms outside, and dispose of it quite as readily as we would if the rules of Debate permitted us to deal with it here. We protest as Scottish Members against the manner in which this Bill is being brought in, and against the way in which what are conceived to be the constitutional rights of Scotland have been ignored. We protest against a Bill of this nature having been sent to a Committee composed mainly of Englishmen instead of to the Scottish Grand Committee. Our second point of objection is to the giving away of public money to people who do not deserve it or require it, the giving it away in a manner which amounts purely to a robbery of public funds.
    Mr. HARDIE: While the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) was speaking he was interrupted by the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. J. Erskine) who suggested that my hon. Friend had perhaps never seen a deer forest. Surely the hon. Member for Stirling, coming from the district he does, is much more likely to have an understanding of what a deer forest really is than the hon. Member for St. George's. Let me refer to one illustration which will show why we so strongly oppose money being provided for people who have crushed agriculture in Scotland. Let me take the district of Loch Aline and the great Black and White Glens which used to be cultivated and to send their produce annually to the Finnary Mill to be ground. In those days hundreds of men, women and children were leading clean, healthy lives; to-day we are asked by this Measure to give public money to the owner of those lands, to the man who, the moment he became the owner, shut up both the Black and White

    1463
    Glens and crushed these particular people out into the industrial centres, and also closed down the mill. To-day what only a few years ago was the home of hundreds of people is closed up. I am surprised that any man claiming to be a Scotsman should come forward and seek to support a system whereby men who are destroying agriculture and are destroying the homes of the people are to be given a grant of public money. In the rivers Aline and Rannich which falls into Loch Aline anyone standing on the bridges can see the salmon fighting their way up stream, and yet the inhabitants of that district are compelled to eat tinned salmon which has been brought 4,500 miles across the sea because a Tory Government allows this man the right to deny to the local inhabitants the use of Nature's plentiful products, and to send the inhabitants themselves from their healthy lives and happy homes into industrial centres.
    8.0 P.M.
    This Clause is an absolute disgrace to the whole Bill. It is a disgrace to think land, from which so much has been wrested by the application of labour, should be closed down in order to become the haunts of a few deer. It is interesting to note that the man who is responsible for the closing of the Black and White Glens—Mr. Craig Sellars—is the son of the man who was responsible for the Sutherlandshire clearances. It seems to run in the blood with them to lay waste all this productive land and these productive streams, in order that they may have a few deer for people like the hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, to shoot at during one or two months in the year. There is a Bill before this House for the humane slaughter of animals. I think that ought to be applied to some of the shots that go up to the North. I have often heard it said in this House in a jocular way that we are trying to blow out somebody's brains. You would need to be a good shot to blow out their brains.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting very far away from the Amendment.
    Mr. HARDIE: Yes, that is too far away, but I was trying to reply to the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster. It is generally the case that by the time
    1464
    you get in in this Debate, those who have preceded you have disappeared. While they are dining and whining, the people who have been thrust away from these beautiful glens are suffering. Yet there are people in Scotland who would support them, and I feel that shooting is too kind a thing.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am afraid I do not possess the eloquence and power of my hon. Friends who have spoken, but I want to say at once that I agree with them in the very emphatic protest they have made against this Clause. I trust they will not consider me discourteous if I turn to another side of the problem, which was raised by the Solicitor-General. The most remarkable argument he used in defence of this Clause was when he said that it was like the system of percentage grants now in operation, as between the National Exchequer, on the one side, and Scotland on the other, where you get a 50–50 allocation, and the advantage of any deduction or increase in that allowance goes to proprietors and to tenants. I am astonished that the learned Solicitor-General should have used an argument of that kind, because in recent times that problem has been under consideration of a Committee of the Treasury. I cannot indicate what view will be taken, but I can make the statement with confidence at the present time that the Committee, considering the whole problem of percentage grants from this country, would differ at once and completely from the view of the Solicitor-General. There is no comparison whatever between the police and other percentage grants in this country and the proposal he is now defending.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—
    Mr. GRAHAM: There is no comparison whatever between the effect of the percentage grants and the effect of the proposal now being made to the House. The whole effect of this proposal is to confer an advantage in rating on a certain limited section of the community. I very much hope that that argument will not be employed. I venture to say that the Percentage Grants Committee itself would be the very first to denounce this proposal, and it has in effect in the proceedings which have taken place up to the present time associated itself with the Report of

    1465
    the Dunedin Committee and other bodies in urging strongly that there should be no interference with the allocation of rates in Scotland, and that no other special remission should be granted until the whole position has been reconsidered. The only effect of the Government's proposal in this connection is further to complicate an already complicated system.
    The SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I think this Bill is really a step forward towards rating reform in Scotland.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am sorry to differ entirely from the learned Solicitor-General. That is not the report of the Dunedin Committee and it is not the view of the Percentage Grants Committee. They have drawn attention to the fact that every fresh device introduced, whether for equalisation or anything else, is to be avoided until we have considered the problem as a whole. We are supporting on this side of the House an Amendment which in effect would place this advantage more particularly upon the occupier rather than upon the owner of agricultural land. I daresay I speak for all my colleagues and many other Members when I say that we are opposed to this proposal altogether. We regard this as a thoroughly unsound and dangerous Bill, but if the device is to be introduced let us try to be logical to this extent that the advantage is to lie where in existing circumstances, according to current argument, it is most required. The learned Solicitor-General has told us that certain sections of the Scottish landowners require this assistance. There is one section of Scottish landowner with whom I daresay many of my colleagues on these benches would probably have some sympathy. I refer to those owners who have consistently tried to do their duty by their estates and refrained from charging exorbitant rents, and who at the end of the day have found themselves in substantial difficulties. I have always admitted that these people were entitled to consideration, but I am afraid they are a minority in Scotland to-day, and there are two other classes of proprietors on whom our sympathy would be absolutely wasted. I refer first to that class of proprietor whose estates are burdened for family and other reasons, sometimes because of the squandering of
    1466
    family resources which I venture to suggest it is no part of the business of the taxpayers of this country to make good. There is another class of owner who has recently entered into Scotland on the basis of great wealth made in industrial pursuits or otherwise elsewhere. Does anyone suggest that the two classes I have mentioned are entitled to relief which may amount to a substantial proportion of this £300,000 at the expense of other classes of the ratepayers and taxpayers? I do not think a proposal of that kind could be defended for one moment.
    I take frankly the view that we are not entitled, even as regards the occupiers of agricultural land in Scotland or England at the present day, to make any rate concession at all. At the present time we do not know the actual position of the farming community in this country, because we have not Schedule D returns showing the actual profits, but only one time the annual valuation for taxation purposes is in existence. It is a curious thing that although they enjoy the right to fill up Schedule D and show their actual profits, they have not, except in a small minority of cases, elected to do so. Surely it is absolutely wrong to give any money, I do not care what the sum may be, to people who have notoriously done well during the War, whose position you do not know in the absence of that return and whose position you have not sought to ascertain before introducing this legislation which you are asking the House to pass.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I rise only for the purpose of dealing with one of the arguments which the learned Solicitor-General indulged in. He attempted to justify this subsidy to the landowners of Scotland on the ground that the agricultural industry was in a very bad state and that consequently the landowners, themselves were suffering. I cannot understand why, if such be the case, tenants of agricultural holdings should be so anxious to become owner-occupiers. He told us in his speech, in attempting to defend the proposals of the Government, that the benefits would be largely derived by owner-occupiers, of whom there are a considerable number, a number which was being added to daily, as he understood was the case from the reports from the Scottish Press. If tenants of agricultural holdings were anxious to become owners, it was obvious

    1467
    that the owners' position would not be quite so bad as he attempted to make out. On the other hand, if there is a very large transference of agricultural holdings in Scotland so as to convert the tenant into an owner, then the agriculturists themselves cannot have suffered very severely, because otherwise they would not have been able to effect Such a transfer of property. I do ask the Solicitor-General to try and square these somewhat conflicting points of view. Unless he does so, there is very grave reason for doubting the efficacy, and, indeed, the wisdom, of the Government's proposal. There is another point which, I think, requires explanation before this proposal should be definitely accepted by the House, and that is with regard to the position of deer forests. As I understand it, the owners of deer forests will not benefit from this proposal unless it can be shown that those deer forests can come within the category of agricultural holdings. The question I put to the Solicitor-General is, When does a deer forest become an agricultural holding? Does it become an agricultural holding when a few sheep are placed upon it, and, if so, are those few sheep placed upon it to transfer it, for the purposes of the Government's proposals, into an agricultural holding, in order to derive the benefits with which the Government seek to endow such property in Scotland?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: If the hon. Member will look at the definition Section of the Act of 1896, he will find that any question that may arise as to whether lands and heritages fall within the category of agricultural lands shall be determined by the Sheriff.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I think that that is likely to complicate the matter still further. In the first place, we are to have litigation, that is to say, we are to have a reference to a Court of law as to whether a deer forest is merely a deer forest for the purposes of stalking deer, or is an agricultural holding; and, in the second place, there are, so far as I know, no principles laid down in the Bill which will enable the Sheriff to determine the course he shall take. It is far from satisfactory in the absence of a clear definition. My final point is this: The Solicitor-General sought to justify this subsidy on
    1468
    the ground that there was severe agricultural depression to which the owners had been subject for some years. We have had the question raised in this House more than once of the position of the necessitous areas both in England and in Scotland, and also the question of the severe industrial depression in the industrial areas both of England and Scotland. If there is justification for the granting of a subsidy such as this to agriculture and to the owners of landed property in Scotland, then there is similar justification for a similar subsidy to business men and owners of industrial and other property in Scotland, but I do not know that the Government propose to extend this principle any further.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That would be proper to the Third Reading, but at the present we must assume that there is to be a subsidy to agriculture, and the question is whether the owner should participate in that, or only the tenant.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I accept your ruling, Sir, but, since arguments have been adduced by the Solicitor-General which bear on this point, one cannot do otherwise than traverse the ground which he has covered. I will, however, content myself by pointing out that, if the principle is applied in the one case, it might very justly be applied all round, and, since there is no proposal of that kind, so far as I know, emanating from the Government, we are entitled to oppose this particular proposal. May I point out that what the Government are proposing to do is to confer an undoubted benefit of a very wide and liberal kind on some of their immediate and intimate friends? There is a very large and, I believe, wealthy landowner in my own constituency, who sits in another place and is a Member of the Government. I think he occupies the honourable post of Civil Lord of the Admiralty. He has in his possession something like 30,000 acres, and the Government are proposing here to hand out benefits to their own friends. Surely, it is a travesty of constitutionalism and a blot on stable government and right thinking in political life that the Government should hand out benefits of this kind to those who are entitled to sit on their own benches. I would remind the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secre-

    1469
    tary to the Scottish Board of Health, who sits beside him, and who has, I believe, a very great knowledge of agriculture in Scotland, that in the West Lothian constituency, which is very largely an agricultural constituency, while the farmers are entitled to some consideration—as to whether this is the proper consideration or not is another matter—the landowners in that constituency, of which the Noble Lord whom I have mentioned is one of the chief and most influential, and, I believe, most prosperous, are not entitled to any consideration whatever. For these reasons, and particularly because of the paucity of argument contained in the speech of the Solicitor-General—a speech which, I hope he will forgive me for saying, was, perhaps, one of the lamest from the point of view of justification that I have ever listened to in this House or elsewhere—because of the complete absence of argument of a sound, valid, and logical character, we are entitled to ask the Government to give us, at least, a more satisfactory explanation of the course they propose to take than has hitherto been presented to the House.
    Mr. MacLAREN: I want to analyse some of the arguments that have been used by the Solicitor-General. He seemed to hinge his case a great deal upon the owner occupier, and then he went on to advance the argument that rates upon the occupier fell upon him to the detriment of the industry itself. When he put it in that way, Members on this side said that they did not think so. If there is an occupier or an owner of land using the land, and the rate should fall on the owner or occupier in proportion to the uses to which they put the land, then, undoubtedly, such rates or taxes are a sort of detrimental brake on the progress and development of agriculture; but we have owners in this country, as we have in Scotland, and more especially in Scotland, who are of no service to agriculture at all, and supposing that all the rates and taxes fell upon what they get out of the land, it would be in no way detrimental to the development of agriculture. It was for that reason that we interjected, when the Solicitor-General was using this argument, that, even though the rates were heavy and fell upon the owner of the land, it would not, in the case to which I am referring, namely,
    1470
    that of the owner who contributes nothing to agriculture, act to the detriment of the progress of agriculture at all.
    The Solicitor-General, however, became a little subtle in his arguments about the owner-occupier. He comes from Scotland, where subtlety is synonymous with learning, and he used the argument that the owner-occupier would be entitled to a reduction in his rates as an owner, and a reduction in his rates as a user of the soil. Whenever a protest has been made during the Debate against the advantages which are given to the owner, there has been this constant introduction into the Debate of the owner-occupier. I take it an owner-occupier is a man who is occupying the land for use, and I would advocate that that man should be freed from rates entirely. I am not saying that the site value should be free from rates, but that every encouragement should be given to him as the user of the land by reducing his rates. But as an owner-occupier he is in the position of receiver of the ground rent, and to that extent he has no more right to claim an exemption from the rates levied upon that part of the wealth which he appropriates as the owner of land than has his large comrade who owns vast estates. We are told we must not differentiate because really if we do and we tend to throw the burden of the rate on the owner, agriculture would be reduced to a sort of failure.
    Perhaps the most illuminating speech which has been made on this Amendment came from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik). When I moved the rejection of the Bill I stated that any advantage from reduced rates would go ultimately to the owners of the land in rent, and any levying of rates would tend to lower the rents which the landowner would receive. The Minister said that was a figment of my imagination, and there was no reality behind it. Yet the Member for the Scottish Universities has told us in plain unvarnished language that it was ultimately the owner who paid the rates, and that any rates levied would fall ultimately upon the rent he received, and if the rates were high there would come a time, and he gave an illustration to show it, when the owner of land would be able to do nothing at all because he received no rent. That, in my opinion, gave away the whole of the case for the Government

    1471
    in refusing to accept this Amendment. It means, to put it in an extreme way, that even though you concede to the occupier and to the user of land a certain reduction in rates, according to the argument of the hon. Member it would ultimately go in rent to the owners of the land. I have only intervened to pursue these, as I consider, rather interesting incidents in the Debate so far, because they emphasise suspicions in our mind. One cannot take the wide field, restricted as we are to the ruling of the Chair, and bound to keep within the four corners of the Amendment. But this Debate will go on. You will get through the Report stage and it will become as clear as anything can be that this Bill, like many other agricultural Bills which have gone before, where you have tried to get round the difficulty of helping agriculture by reducing rates and giving subsidies here and there, will be as futile as those which have gone before it, because while the argument used is true that the way to encourage industry is to stop rating and taxing it, yet the principle behind this Bill, of relieving farmers and the occupiers, not upon their improvements and agricultural development, but merely in rates in so far as their land is concerned, in my opinion is only strengthening the hands of land monopoly, leading, as it will lead ultimately, to a slowing down of the development of agriculture. This Bill, like the other Bills which have gone before it, and the magnificent display the other day on the valuation—all these things are synonymous with the principles held dear by hon. Members opposite, and it is to be hoped that the public outside will get a clear understanding from all that has gone on to-day in this matter, as well as in other matters appertaining to land during the past week, and that it will not be long until some of us who mean to deal with this thing more radically will be on the other side of the House with power to do it without in any way strengthening the power of special vested interests.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the present Debate should not yet come to a conclusion as this is the first opportunity the House has had of discussing a very important departure in relation to Imperial subventions to local rates. We
    1472
    have here a subvention to the agricultural industry which in Scotland for the first time makes a direct gift to the owners of land. On the Report stage of the Financial Resolution of this Bill the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer) and some others with whom I was associated endeavoured to raise this matter and to make clear exactly what was being done to show, if we could, how much was going to the owners and how much to the occupiers. I made a calculation at that time on the basis of the White Paper which the Government laid before the House which showed, as I think I proved, that the owners were going to get twice as much as the occupiers. There was no reply from the Government. There was no attempt on the part of anyone on the other side of the House either to explain or to justify such an extraordinary transaction, and the only reply we got from the Government was that when the Solicitor-General for Scotland attempted to rise, the Minister for Agriculture closured his own colleague. That shows that there was something sinister going on—something that they wanted to hide. They tried to prevent these figures coming out, so that no one would understand them. In the Debate on the Second Reading not the slightest indication was given by any Minister that any such transaction was being carried out. We now know it is true. Attempts were made to deny it in the Press, but finally we have it now admitted from the Treasury Bench that in respect of the relief now being granted to Scotland the owners, who on the basis of the principal Act get nothing at all, who presumably on the theory practised by the Tory Government of 1896 did not deserve anything at all, are now getting twice as much as they ought to have.
    We know that the basis is that while under present conditions the tenant pays in respect of three-eighths of his valuation, the owner pays in respect of the whole. That is their respective share of the rates. If this Bill passes the tenant's share will be reduced from three-eighths to two-eighths, while the landlord's valuation will be reduced from the whole to three-quarters, and the result in figures, so far as we can judge from the Estimate, is that of the £480 000 which is ostensibly going to the relief of agriculture in Scotland, £300,000 is going into the pockets of the owners and only £180,000 into the

    1473
    pockets of those who are really engaged in the industry as occupiers. I call that a disgraceful transaction and a travesty of justice, and when the people of Scotland get to know what is being done, as they will get to know, even the slender representation of Scotland which still supports the present Government will come to an end. It is not without interest to observe that in to-day's Debate the only speaker on behalf of this proposal has been the Solicitor-General for Scotland, apart from the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik). He is their last hope. He knows, of course, that as long as he desires he can get in under a system of proportional representation for the Scottish Universities. Therefore, he is immune from the fears of popular anger. Where are their other representatives? There is the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Ford), who sits on the Treasury Bench. He is preserving the silence that becomes a Whip. The hon. and gallant Member for South Lanark (Captain Elliot) no doubt will endeavour before the Debate comes to a conclusion to give some philosophical defence of this extraordinary procedure. He will defend it, I have no doubt, on biological lines, in the same way in which he held his Fabian theories in the old days before he entered this House. Where are the others? Where is the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home)? He is not here. The hon. Member for Kelvin Grove (Mr. W. Hutchison) is not here. They are all away. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dumbartonshire!"] The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn) was here for a moment, but he has also disappeared. Not a single supporter of the Government who has been in the House, except the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities, has spoken on behalf of this proposal. Could there be clearer evidence that not only is it without support in Scotland, but that in principle it is indefensible.
    It is important to remember that in 1896, in the heyday of Toryism, in the heyday of the imperialistic reaction in this country, when Lord George Hamilton said the Government were going to look after their friends, both in office and out of office, they did not dare to do this thing. They put forward a much more moderate proposal. They gave relief to the occupiers of land, but none of it was
    1474
    to go to the owners. Even that proposal was opposed by the present Secretary for Scotland (Lord Novar). Lord Novar was against it, and made many eloquent speeches against it. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer—Mr. McKenna—whom we are shortly to see returned for the City of London, was against it. He made 35 speeches on the Report stage against the much more moderate proposal. Perhaps it is to save his face that the Government are doing this now. Perhaps that is why they are hurrying it through They do not want to have the right hon. Gentleman taunted with his old speeches when he sits on the Treasury Bench.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is not this a Third Reading speech?
    Mr. PRINGLE: No, I am dealing with the Amendment, and I am pointing out that on a much more moderate proposal, which did not include this complete departure from all precedent and practice in regard to the relief of rating, two Members of the present Government spoke frequently in opposition. We have had the experience of the 1896 Act, and there have been commissions and committees from time to time in the interval dealing with this topic. Not a single Commission or Committee, no matter by what Government it was appointed, recommended a proposal of this kind. The Dunedin Committee, appointed by the late Government, which was composed, in the main, of supporters of the present Government, did not make this recommendation. It is said that it was not open to them to deal with this matter in their terms of reference. There was nothing in the terms of reference to have prevented that Committee making a recommendation on this matter. Their terms of reference were:
    "To inquire into the present system under which taxation is raised by local authorities for rating purposes in Scotland,. and to report whether the system is equitable and economical and, if not, to suggest what alterations in the system are desirable."
    Those terms of reference are sufficiently wide to have enabled them to inquire into anything in regard to local rating and to make any recommendations which they choose for the purpose of putting local rating upon an equitable basis. They made two significant recommendations. Their eighth recommendation was:
    "That the Agricultural Rates Act should remain in force without alteration."

    1475
    There was to be no increase. It was to be without alteration in this respect, that under that Act the whole of the relief goes to the occupier. Their ninth recommendation was that:
    "The exemption from rates should not be extended,"—
    That could only mean that the relief should not be extended,
    "but that matters should remain as they are."
    That is a general recommendation in relation both to exemptions and relief, and that there should be no change either in principle or in fact. When we remember what has been done in the past and what has been done by Commissions, it is clear that the Government have not the slightest shred of authority for the present new departure. Why is it done? We are told that it is a measure of justice, and the people who are going to get something out of it chee red that statement. How is it going to help agriculture, and particularly agriculture in Scotland, to grant relief in this way? If it was necessary for the purpose of granting relief to agriculture to help agriculture in this way, why was it not done in 1896? Why wait until now to find out this particular way of benefiting agriculture? The hon. Member for South Lanark shakes his head. A comparatively newly-fledged Tory like himself must admit that something has to be attributed to experience in these matters.
    Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): Hear, hear! Since 1896.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We have had experience, and we have the Report of the latest Committee, which recommends that there should be no change in the principles of the Act of 1896. The argument as to partnership has been raised. It is said that the owners are partners, that the occupier is a partner, and the labourer is a partner. It is very interesting to observe in this Bill that the only person left out is the labourer. When we hear of class war and class legislation it is not inappropriate to remember that. What is the fact in regard to partnership in Scotland? The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities gave an argument in regard to the crofting counties. The argument was that in the crofting
    1476
    counties the rates had grown to an enormous extent, and had now reached such an excessive figure that many owners whom he knew were not getting a penny out of their property. But in the crofting counties there is no partnership in agriculture. The old partnership has come to an end. The owner has become purely a rent receiver. Nothing which he will get out of this will go to the relief of agriculture. In these crofting areas it is the occupier who makes all improvements, builds the steadings, makes the drains and fences, and, of course, the rates are on the value of the land. The important thing is, you are going to give a grant ostensibly for the relief of agriculture which, in all the crofting counties of Scotland is going into the pockets of the owners without doing any good to agriculture. I would ask the hon. Member for Lanark to refute that argument. Can he show how a penny that goes into the pockets of any landlord in the crofting counties will go to the benefit of agriculture?
    Captain ELLIOT: There is not the slightest difficulty.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It will be interesting to hear his reply. On all the land let to crofter tenants not a penny will go to agriculture. That is the far larger portion of the land. There is no deer forests land under that tenancy. We have the interesting point whether the deer forests will come in or not. The Solicitor-General, when asked about this, endeavoured to reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and said that the Sheriffs had to interpret the matter. I am not sure what the interpretation of the Sheriffs has been as a matter of practice under the Act of 1896, but it has been suggested to me that deer forests in which there are a few sheep are treated as agricultural subjects for the purpose of relief, and the owners of these deer forests, who get large rents for the forests as sporting subjects, will be able to get relief from the Exchequer to the extent of one-fourth under this Bill.
    The whole thing is revealed without any disguise as a gift by the Government to their friends. They are making hay while the sun shines. They know that it is not going to shine very long, but they are going to get off with as

    1477
    much loot as they can. I admit that in some parts of Scotland there are landowners who have borne their part, in the partnership. Many landowners, to my own knowledge, have made improvements and have done a service to Scottish agriculture but they have got it in the rent. If they have made improvements, drained land, built steadings and done fencing—if you take the better agricultural land in Scotland—the owners have been getting a return in enhanced rent. Some of the highest rented land in the country is in these areas. These people are not suffering at present, nor have they suffered. So where there is a real partnership the relief is not required, but relief is granted where the spirit of the partnership has gone altogether and where the landowner who has obligations under the theory of our system of land tenure has not been fulfilling these obligations. That man will be able to get his share of the spoil.
    It is making a very large demand on our credulity to ask us to believe that these landowners who have not fulfilled their responsibilities are going to spend the dole received, under this Bill for the improvement of agriculture. But not content with the partnership argument the Solicitor-General says you must remember the occupying owners. Are you going to relieve the occupying owners in England and not in Scotland? That would be a monstrous injustice to those people who have been increasing in numbers and spreading all over the land. The farms in Scotland have been transformed, the large estate is passing away, and we have now something like what exists in France, a great horde of peasant proprietors. Are we? Where are they? They are going to Canada so far as I can make out.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Lord Eustace Percy): You do not represent a Scottish constituency.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am not the only Scotsman representing an English constituency. I do not know that the Noble Lord can congratulate himself on the most recent acquisition to the representation of his own county, who is a Scotsman also. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The interruption was somewhat irrelevant, and even below the standard of the Noble Lord. We have got figures from the Solicitor-General of the occupying
    1478
    owners. They are 7,000. They have in creased by 2,000 since 1914, as the result of this great scheme of land settlement whereby the countryside was to be repopulated and the rural life of our country to be revivified by all these gentlemen who were to make a great agricultural new Jerusalem. There are 60,000 agricultural occupiers, so that instead of one in 12, as they were in 1914, we have now something like one in nine occupying owners, and it is for this slender remnant of 7,000 that we are to carry out this great change in the principle of a subvention to agriculture. Even the Solicitor-General can hardly be so innocent as to expect us to believe that that is the motive underlying this proposal. He desires, certainly, to impress the House with those merits which this Government has always claimed for itself. His honesty is verging on simplicity, and we are apt in these circumstances to be impressed with his ingenuous statement, but in this cass I do not think that even his innocence would impose on any hon. Member. The truth is that two-thirds of this subvention in Scotland is going directly into the pockets of the owner. I think that we can take as a proof of what is the real object of the whole proposal.
    In form in England it is going to the occupier. In form in Scotland it is going partly to the occupier, but in reality and in the long run the whole thing will go into the pockets of the owner. It is true that the existing occupiers are going to get some moderate relief, and by the expectation of that relief they are induced to support this proposal, but in the long run it is going into the pockets of the owner. Two-thirds are going directly to the owner in Scotland. The Minister of Agriculture knows why that is done. This is to queer the pitch of any future rating reform. This is to create vested interests, to make sure that where any money has gone to once there it will stay. He said so himself. In one of the earlier Debates he said that the advantage of relief of this kind is that, once it is given, it cannot be taken away. That is what happened in 1896.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that the relief in 1896 was given entirely to occupiers.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The contention of the Minister, that when such a grant is given

    1479
    it cannot be taken away, is an indication that it is the intention of this Government to lay hands upon the money of the taxpayer to endow their own supporters.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not know whether my hon. Friend opposite looks upon me as in the category of the very simple. I have listened to some of this Debate, and what has struck me more than anything else is that to be a landlord is one of those things which ought not to be permitted on the face of the earth. I am a Scotsman and a landlord. I have to-day heard various insinuations as to where this money will go, and such like. But let us get back to what is the main issue in this question. It is surely that, owing to the differences in the rating systems of Scotland and England, if you are to give proportionate relief to agriculture in Scotland as compared with agriculture in England, you will have to do what to many hon. Gentlemen seems to be an outrageous thing, that is, give some relief to agriculture through one of the partners of agriculture, the landlord and owner of the land. I listened with amazement to the speech of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). For many years he represented the county in which I happen to own land. He has told this House that in all the years that he represented a Scottish constituency he was never able to understand that there had been any real measure of co-operation between the tenant and the landlord. I am certain that any hon. Member who has followed the history of land in Scotland will agree that, while there have been good and bad landlords, as there have been good and bad tenants, the relationship, on the whole, and through the length and breadth of the country has been a measure of co-operation between the landlord and the tenant. Indeed, if it had not been so, there are many places where agriculture would have suffered gravely.
    9.0 P.M.
    Let me come to the question of the agricultural occupier. It is true that there may not have been an enormous accession to the number of those who in recent years have bought land and have become owners of property, but in my own locality there are men who, having occupied farms for many years, perhaps for
    1480
    generations, have, out of sentiment to a great extent, on the break-up of great estates, invested their money in their farms. So far as I know, those men are likely to have increasing difficulty in carrying on their holdings in these properties. You may say that they bought the land at a time when it was dear. That is, possibly, true. But is that not all the greater argument why to-day in this Measure, which is a temporary Measure, we should do something to assist those men to meet their difficulties. I have talked with men who have bought their farms, and they are beginning to realise the immense burden of the upkeep of buildings and fencing. I know personally that there are some farms to-day that are visibly deteriorating in their fencing because these men are finding a difficulty of getting enough to meet these outlays.
    I am told that much has been said with regard to the Highlands. It may be true that actual crofting areas will not get the full benefit of what may go to the landlord in this case, but there are very few estates in the North—I have no interest in any of them—which are confined entirely to crofts. They are estates which consist in some portions of crofts, and in other areas are farmed either upon large farming principles or are used wholly or partly for sporting purposes. Where they are used wholly for sporting purposes the landlord will get no benefit under this Bill, as I understand it. If these properties carry upon them sheep and cattle, in addition to such game as deer, and if they carry them in fair and reasonable proportion, which, I think, is a matter for settlement by the Courts if there is any question in dispute—under those circumstances what argument in equity should be advanced against dealing with questions of that kind? I, for my sins or pleasure, as you may look at it, am the proprietor of an estate. I do not like to speak of personal matters, but in deed and in fact, if I do my duty by my property, I see not a penny of my rental coming into my hands for expenditure upon living in London or upon buying anything for my own particular pleasure. It may be that there are landlords who do not carry out their full duties, as they ought to do, but I say without fear of contradiction, in Scotland or elsewhere, that the great majority

    1481
    of them are well aware of the responsibilities and the duty which they owe, not only to their tenants but to the country as a whole.
    As far as I can see it would be a great mistake for Scotland at present, whatever the prejudice—there is a prejudice, born, I think, of misconception and ignorance in some part, and born out of realities in other parts, a prejudice against giving anything or voting to give anything to a class which is called the landlord class—it would be a lamentable mistake, from the point of view of agriculture as a whole in Scotland, that you should refuse to take from the Government a grant which is going to help agriculture throughout the country. I am a Lowlander and not a Highlander. I have the greatest sympathy with the Highlanders. I have the greatest desire to see men settled on the land in the Highlands, but agriculture is not confined to the Highlands, and our discussions in this House too often centre on the question of land settlement, important though it is, rather than upon the question of agriculture in the Lowlands and throughout the southern portion of my country. I welcome this temporary Measure in support of agriculture, and I feel that those who disagree with it are doing a grievous injury to the industry as a whole by the attitude which they have taken up and the proposals which they have made.
    Mr. MUIR: Had it not been for the intervention of the right hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow (Sir J. Gilmour), I do not think I would have spoken in this Debate, but when he., representing the landed interests, intercedes on behalf of those interests, I think it is right that the points he has raised should be dealt with. He also advances the idea of a partnership between landlord and tenant. I do not know anything about the hon. Gentleman's own landowning, nor do I wish to criticise it, and there is nothing personal in the remarks I am about to make, but it seems to me evident that landlord and tenant are not on an equal footing. It is quite true that a landlord with enlightened self-interest realises that if he is to get anything out of his land he must keep his tenant going and must pay attention to his own duties in keeping his hereditaments in order. Otherwise, he is killing the goose that
    1482
    lays the golden eggs, for if he is left without a tenant there can be no income from his land and it is to his interest to play his own part. But there is no question of a partnership at all. It is the same thing in the case of the landlord who does not fulfil his obligations, who does not keep fences in order, drainage in good condition or farm buildings in proper repair. If this grant is given there is no penalty against those who fail to fulfil these obligations and there is no guarantee that the grant is going to be used for the fulfilment of their obligations by those landlords who are at present, either from inability or through deliberate intention, departing from those obligations. There is no guarantee that buildings will be put into repair or the land drained and fenced, in cases where those duties have been neglected. In the matter of housing, a 25 per cent. increase was allowed under the Rents Act for repairs, but in 75 per cent. of the cases the repairs were not done. In this case landlords who have been either unable or unwilling to keep their property in good repair are going to get a further relief, and that is all it amounts to.
    The right hon. Member for the Pollok Division said there seemed to be a general feeling that to be a landlord at all was a thing that should not be permitted. He knows perfectly well that there has always been a strong objection to landlords, as such, and it is growing particularly in Scotland. It is not the case as the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) sought to make out, that the landowner, as such, contributes anything to agriculture. The landowner, as landowner, contributes nothing whatever. It is those who are tenant farmers, who maintain their own buildings, fences and drains. It has been argued, on the other side, in support of this grant that the owner-occupiers are already doing so, and if they are already doing so, why give a grant to the landowners who are doing nothing? I am not prepared to deny that the man who has come into possession of property during recent years and who may have bought it at the peak price, is in great difficulty at the moment. But is there no way of securing for those people some assistance on the same lines as those on which credit facilities have been given, instead

    1483
    of giving it on a flat rate to all and sundry and giving it to those who are holders of land and who contribute nothing to the industry—people who are barnacles on agriculture and who hamper the progress of the industry? We on these benches would not say that the owner-occupier who is in difficulties has no right to any assistance, but it does not follow that there is any sound reason for giving that assistance to the landlords.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: When the hon. Member says that the landlord is contributing nothing, does he realise that in Scotland all the farm buildings are erected and kept up by the landlords, and the fencing and drainage done by the landlords? In these circumstances, can it be said that the landlord contributes nothing?
    Mr. MUIR: If that were the case there might be something to be said for the right hon. Member's view, but he himself has already admitted that he is only doing it himself with the greatest difficulty, in so far as he is doing it at all, and that he is getting nothing out of it. It is only a question of degree until he is unable to do it, and he admits that there are many now in the position of being unable to do it. While the right hon. Member might take advantage of this grant to put his buildings, drains and fences in repair it, does not follow that all the others will do so, and I see no reason why they should be given a free hand. In the case of the small holdings, the landlord contributes nothing and, as stated by the hon. Member for the Sottish Universities, in the crofting areas it is not the landlord who does that work at all. It is not the landlord who should get consideration but the producer who is working on the land. Hon. Members who advance the theory of the partnership in agriculture, omit the chief factor in agriculture. The labourer is never mentioned on the other side of the House and he does not come into this Bill at all. If there is any partnership, then all who take part in agriculture must be regarded as shareholders. If the agricultural labourers, who are numerically the largest number, are left out—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Only those who pay rates are affected.
    Mr. MUIR: While it is a common custom that agricultural labourers have their cottages as part of the appurtenances of the job, they are not all in that position, and those who are living off the farms have rates to pay, and are getting no assistance whatever. In any case, if they do not pay rates, if there is any reference made to a partnership, and if there is any hardship imposed on those who are parties to it, surely the Government and their supporters, who are so anxious about the well-being of the partnership, should also have concerned themselves with the condition of those larger numbers who are parties to the partnership. I support the Amendment.
    Major McKENZIE WOOD: After the long and clear arguments that have been addressed to the Government, I think we ought to have some answer. [Laughter.] An hon. Gentleman opposite laughs, but he has just come in, and I am sure he knows nothing about what has taken place. I am not surprised, therefore, to find that he laughs, as he so often does, but this is a very serious matter for Scotland, and I think we are entitled to insist upon a clear answer being given. We have pointed out that by this Bill a large subvention is being given ostensibly to agriculture, and we have said that the greater part of it is going directly into the pockets of the landlord. We say that that will not help agriculture. The Government's case is that they say it is true that a large part of this subvention is going into the pockets of the landlords, but that in some mysterious way it will percolate down to the other partners, as they are called, in the industry; that it is going to help the tenant in that he will have lower rents and better equipped holdings, and indeed, as far as I can gather, the agricultural labourer is going to have higher wages.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: They have not said that.
    Major WOOD: That seems to me to be implicit in the case that is being attempted to be made for this Bill, and if I am stating it wrongly, I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Scottish Board of Health to tell us whether I am wrong. A specific case was put from this side a moment or two ago, which, I think, deserves an immediate answer. It was

    1485
    pointed out that there cannot be any possibility of anything percolating through to the tenants and the workmen on a large area of land in Scotland which at the present time is worked under the small holdings system, because under that system at any rate, whatever may be the case in other parts of the country, there is no possibility of the landlord, even if he wished to do so, helping in the development of small holdings. He has no connection with them. He is simply there to receive rents, which are fixed by a land court, but he does not build the buildings, he does not do the drains, he does nothing at all in connection with the equipping of the holding, and I should like a specific answer on that point.
    How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that any money which is given in relief of rates to the landlord of land which is farmed under the small holdings system can possibly get through to the tenant and to the labourer on that land? If it cannot go through, as I maintain it cannot, how can he say that that money will in any way benefit agriculture? That is a clear argument which has been put up to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we ought to hear what he has to say upon it.
    Captain ELLIOT: I think that, in common with many other Members of the House, we thought that the rodomontades that have come from the other side were for consumption in the Press, and not for answering here, as indeed is evidenced by the fact that the hon. Member who put a case just now immediately on making his speech went out of the House, and has not yet returned.
    Major WOOD: He remained here a long time after he made his speech, and he went out, as he told me, to get his dinner.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: May I point out that the specific case made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) was also made in the Standing Committee, and was not answered there.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone, I think this explanation is due. It was not out of any discourtesy to the reply which he anticipated from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that he went out, but my hon. Friend waited until 9 o'clock to make that very valuable contribution to
    1486
    the Debate, and has now rushed out to get a snack of something to eat.
    Captain ELLIOT: I am the last to wish to import any heat into the Debate, but I should have thought the answer to the complaint put forward was obvious on the face of it. After long debate, the case for the Government was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland. It was completely covered by him. He gave the answer is as complete terms as it possibly could be given, and it would be wearying the House to repeat that answer. But my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Major Wood) has asked me how it was supposed that any of the benefit which was given to the landlords would ever penetrate to the tenants. We say that the landlord is carrying on with difficulty just now, and that it is becoming impossible for him to do his duty. That is the general case for the Bill, and I am sorry to repeat it again. Then we come to one specific case which has been put from various sides of the Opposition, with regard to somebody with a tenure under the Crofters Acts. In the general case of an estate, it consists partly of crofts and partly of general farming. One of the difficulties which we have been experiencing at this moment in the administration of the Crofting Acts is that the essence of those Acts is the breaking up of the big estates. One of the points we have been repeatedly asked to deal with has been the breaking up of the big estates, leading to great disturbances among the crofters. We are taking such emergency measures just now, to enable the large landholders to carry out their duty by providing a certain amount of capital. This will affect all alike—laird, tenant and farm servant—for, though the farm servant is not specifically mentioned, his welfare is more closely bound up with the industry than that of any other man. Now, through the breaking up of the big estates, the small holder finds himself placed in a dilemma which we see in practice, but which had not been previously contemplated by those who passed the very legislation under which it is occurring. One of the duties of the present Government will be to take further legislative steps to deal with that emergency. This Bill is one of the steps toward meeting the emergency, and, in that particular instance, the pre-

    1487
    servation of that system under which the small holder will get his benefit, and will receive as much as any other man in Scotland.
    Mr. MacNEILL WEIR: Is it the case that the owner of a deer forest gets the benefit of this grant?
    Captain ELLIOT: That is a question which has really been answered very
    often. A man with a deer forest does not get a penny under this. If there be any dispute as to whether the estate is a sporting estate or not, it goes before the Courts of the country to determine, and that is a complete answer to the allegation.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 190.

    Division No. 285.]

    AYES.

    [9.30 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Richards, R.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hancock, John George

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hardie, George D.

    Riley, Ben

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

    Ritson, J.

    Attlee, C. R.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hemmerde, E. G.

    Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

    Barnes, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Batey, Joseph

    Herriotts, J.

    Saklatvala, S.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hinds, John

    Salter, Dr. A.

    Bonwick, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Sexton, James

    Broad, F. A.

    Irving, Dan

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Bromfield, William

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Brotherton, J.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Buckie, J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smillie, Robert

    Burgess, S.

    Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

    Snell, Harry

    Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Snowden, Philip

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Chapple, W. A.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lansbury, George

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Clarke, Sir E. C.

    Lawson, John James

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

    Collins, Pat (Walsall)

    Leach, W.

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

    Collison, Levi

    Linfield, F. C.

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lowth, T.

    Tout, W. J.

    Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Lunn, William

    Trevelyan, C. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

    Warne, G. H.

    Duffy, T. Gavan

    M'Entee, V. L.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Duncan, C.

    McLaren, Andrew

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Dunnico, H.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Ede, James Chuter

    March, S.

    Weir, L. M.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Middleton, G.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Falconer, J.

    Millar, J. D.

    Whiteley, W.

    Foot, Isaac

    Morel, E. D.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Muir, John W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gosling, Harry

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Gray, Frank (Oxford)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Wright, W.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Paling, W.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Groves, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts, John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Mr. Phillipps and Major McKenzie Wood.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

    Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

    Bruford, R.

    Cope, Major William

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

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

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Berry, Sir George

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Dixon, Capt, H. (Belfast, E.)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

    Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

    England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

    Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Russell, William (Bolton)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Flanagan, W. H.

    Lorden, John William

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

    Foreman, Sir Henry

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Singleton, J. E.

    Gates, Percy

    Margesson, H. D. R.

    Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Mercer, Colonel H.

    Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

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

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Molloy, Major L. G. S.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

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

    Morris, Harold

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Halstead, Major D.

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

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

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Harrison, F. C.

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

    Tubbs, S. W.

    Harvey, Major S. E.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

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

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pattinson, R. (Grantham)

    Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

    Wells, S. R.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Hiley, Sir Ernest

    Pielou, D. P.

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Privett, F. J.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Raine, W.

    Wise, Frederick

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Rankin, Captain James Stuart

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Houfton, John Plowright

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Hughes, Collingwood

    Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

    Yerburgh, R. D. T.

    Hume, G. H.

    Remer, J. R.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Rentoul, G. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Reynolds, W. G. W.

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

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

    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to move in paragraph (1), after the word "councils" ["parish councils be held"], to insert the words:
    "(with the exception hereinafter provided with respect to rates leviable under certified classifications)."
    This matter is possibly one of some complication. There is existing in regard to parish rating a system of classification under which occupiers may be put into one, two, three, or four classes differently rated according to the purposes for which the property assessed is used. For instance, the owners of shops may be rated at the full rate; houses at three-quarters of the full rate; and the land, at possibly, one-half of whatever the rate was. That system existed in a considerable number of parishes, usually partly urban and partly rural in character. In 1896 it was provided that all classifications should be brought to an end, save such as were certi-
    1490
    fied by the Secretary for Scotland, to give terms as favourable to the agricultural occupier as the terms which were given by the Act of 1896, namely, that the agricultural occupier was not to be rated on more than three-eighths of the annual value. Those parishes which have, classifications were entitled, if so disposed, to abandon them. Out of 900 parishes, 160 had certified classifications in 1896, and since that date by abandonment of certified classifications the numbers have sunk to about 40 or 5 per cent. We thought all could be abolished without any alteration of the burdens of the ratepayers in any parish which possessed the system of classification.
    It has, however, been brought to our notice that it would mean entailing certain alterations of the burdens on different classes of ratepayers, and it has, therefore, been thought advisable, so long as the education rate continues to be levied on the parish basis, not to effect the

    1491
    abolition of classifications altogether as was originally proposed in Clause 11, but to allow classifications to be continued, if certified by the Secretary for Scotland, in cases where the rates are not more than one-half of those which would fall on the agricultural occupiers under the present Act. My reason for saying that they would not pay more than one-half is that the provisions of Clause 7 do not apply. My Amendment foreshadows an Amendment to Clause 11 and cuts out of the provisions of paragraph (1) of Clause 7 those cases where the classification exists.
    Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an assurance that the various parish councils affected by this Amendment have been consulted?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can readily give that assurance. We have only heard from one parish—Paisley—where they say it would mean a certain change of burden in respect of the rates. We have only forty altogether. We have not heard from the others.
    Mr. MILLAR: Were the other parishes notified?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (2), after the word "council" ["or parish council"], insert the words "(with the exception aforesaid.)"—[The Solicitor General for Scotland.]
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston), at the end of the Clause to insert a new paragraph (4), has already been dealt with as a new Clause. I understand that the hon. Member now desires to leave out Clause 9.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Ascertainment of amount of additional annual grant for Scotland and of payments to rating authorities.)
    (1) The Secretary for Scotland shall ascertain and certify with respect to the local financial year ending the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and each succeeding local financial year:

    (a) the amount which is to be taken as having been raised during the year by each rating authority by each rate
    1492
    leviable by the authority, and the portion of such amount which would represent the owners' share thereof if this Act had not passed; and

    (b) the whole valuation of the rateable area of each rating authority for each rate, and the portion of such valuation which represents the valuation of agricultural lands and heritages.

    (2) That part of the owners' share of the amount to be taken as having been raised by each rate which represents the proportion borne by the valuation of agricultural lands and heritages in the rateable area to the whole valuation of the rateable area shall, to the extent of three-eighths thereof, ascertained and certified by the Secretary for Scotland with respect to each local financial year, be the amount payable with respect to that year to the rating authority in respect of that rate out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and a sum equal to the aggregate of the amounts so payable in respect of each local financial year to all the rating authorities ascertained and certified as aforesaid shall be the amount of the additional annual grant for Scotland in respect of that year.

    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    The point here is an exceedingly difficult one. I am not quite sure that I understand it myself, and, therefore, I am not sure that I can explain it to the House. I understand, however, the Solicitor-General has a hazy idea of what it means. Before 1899 certain rates were payable by certain owners in the counties. By Section 27 of the Local Government Act power was taken to get the sheriff to fix an average of 10 years for these rates. It was called the average rate. In most counties in Scotland there is a certain proportion where the rates are levied half and half. Under this Bill in regard to the proportion recoverable from the occupiers the rating authority will lose upon the average rate for the year, and it will be recovered by the Government subvention from the three-eighths paid by the owner. The remaining one-eighth, however, will cause a loss to the local authority on account of the subvention on the average rate.
    I do not know how much money this means to the county council altogether, but so far as my information goes, unless it is safeguarded in this Bill, it means a net increase in the loss which must be made up by the local rating authority, and I understand that it will amount to about £6,000. I know that is not a very large sum, and it is to be spread all over the counties in Scotland, but all the same

    1493
    it is an injustice, and an added burden which was never intended to be put upon the county rate. I understand that a case was stated to the Scottish Office pointing out this grievance and that Department replied quite sympathetically, but they stated that they could not suggest an exact form of words which would abolish the grievance and save the local rating authorities from being compelled to pay the average portion of the one-eighth. I am moving to omit this Clause in order to enable the Solicitor-General to see if he can suggest a form of words which will remedy this grievance.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to Second the Amendment.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I am afraid that it will not be possible now to find a form of words that would not have the effect of increasing the charge, because it would involve the raising of an extra sum of £6,000.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that this Amendment will impose a charge and therefore it cannot be in order at this stage.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I pointed out to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) that his Amendment would involve a charge, and I suggested that he should move to leave out the Clause.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The owners paid all the county rates up to 1889 when the county councils were set up. It was provided by the Local Government Act of that year, that owners in the counties should in the future pay all the rates up tothe amount of the average rates payable in each county by them for the ten years previous to the passing of the Act, and that beyond that amount county rates should fall half on owner and half on occupier. It is, therefore, the case that, to a very small degree, the owners in the county are paying a greater proportion than the occupiers, and to that extent there is this deficiency of one-eighth of the average rate. It is a small matter of £6,000 spread over the whole of Scotland, and in any case it would only average about 2d. in the £. The Dunedin Committee recommended that this system of the average rate should be abolished. Their proposal is that, in
    1494
    future, the county rates should be equally divided between the owner and the occupier. This anomaly coming down from past times was considered by the Dunedin Committee and they recommended that the stereotyped average rate should be abolished. Therefore, in any scheme of rating reform which may be proposed, it is most likely that the owners' stereotyped average rate will be abolished, and it will be provided that the rate shall fall equally on owners and occupiers. I am thoroughly aware of the point which has been raised, and I admit that there will be that very small deficiency due to a system which we hope very shortly to abolish. It would be impossible to deal with it now without imposing a charge.
    Mr. MILLAR: I think it is a pity that this particular matter did not receive consideration in due time, so that it might have been dealt with in the Financial Resolution. If the House had been favoured with a correct exposition of the state of matters in the White Paper which was circulated we should then have been in a position to have realised that what was now being proposed was not substantially correct. I trust that we shall have these matters correctly stated in the future, and put before the House.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Certified classifications to cease.)
    As from the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and during the continuance of this Act, every certified classification within the meaning of the Act of 1896 which was in force at the said date shall cease to have any force or effect.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause insert the words:
    "except any existing classification which shall be certified by the Secretary for Scotland in terms of the next succeeding Sub-section of this Section.
    Provided that a parish council shall have power at any time within two months after the passing of this Act to alter any existing classification so far as necessary to enable it to be certified as aforesaid.
    (2) If it shall be certified by the Secretary for Scotland that the rates leviable on the occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages in pursuance of an existing classification (including an existing classification altered as aforesaid) are not more than one-half of the rates which would without classification be leviable on such occupiers in terms of this Act, such classification shall have effect, and the provisions of the Section of this Act relating to annual value of agricultural

    1495
    lands and heritages for county and parish rates shall not apply to the occupiers' share of the rates leviable by the parish council in pursuance of that classification.

    SCHEDULE.

    PART III

    Provisions of Act of 1896 applied.

    Modifications.

    Section 6

    …

    …

    …

    …

    The words "any additional relief to the occupiers of agricultural "lands and heritages effected by this Act" shall be substituted for the words "the relief effected by this Act from a proportion "of the consolidated rate, poor rate, and other rates before "mentioned."

    Mr. FALCONER: I beg to move in Part III, to leave out the word "additional" ["additional relief "].
    I do so in order to get an explanation as to what is the exact meaning of these words. I understand the purpose of this proposal is to ensure that the additional relief is not to be taken into account in ascertaining the proper amount. The Bill states that the legislation is to remain in force under the Act of 1896 subject to the modifications in the Schedule. The Schedule instead of leaving out these words puts in the word "additional." Therefore if you are to give effect to that part you must to that extent revoke the decision of the Act of 1896. I take it that what is meant is the additional relief granted under this Act, and this Bill would cancel what was granted under the Act of 1896. If the draftsmen say that the intention is what I have stated, then I shall be quite satisfied.
    Mr. MILLAR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: Under Section 6 of the Act of 1896 it is provided that the Land Court, in fixing a fair rent, is not to be entitled to take into account the relief afforded by that Act. That relief is not in any way affected by this Bill. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 12 in the present Bill he will find these words:
    "The provisions of the Act of 1896 set out in Part III of the Schedule to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this Act, so far as it relates to Scotland, as if they were re-enacted in this Act with the modifications (if any) specified in the second column of that Part of the Schedule."
    Then if he will look to the Schedule he will find provision with regard to the
    Provided that a parish council shall have power to abandon any classification certified in terms of this Sub-section.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
    additional grant, so that you have the original Section in the Act dealing with the additional grant re-enacted for the purposes of this Act in dealing with the additional grant. Both, in fact, are covered.
    Mr. FALCONER: In view of the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
    In asking the House to refuse a Third Reading to this Bill I am speaking for the Labour party. The reasons which we adduce in order to get the House to agree with us are threefold. In the first place we object to selecting one among many suffering industries in this country for a subvention. Secondly, we believe that the subvention given in this case will go sooner or later into the pockets of the landlords in the shape of the increased price of land, and, thirdly, we do not believe that this is at all the way to promote the development of agriculture in this country. Let me say a few words on each of these three points. I believe hon. Members opposite will agree with us that it is a wrong principle that any particular industry in this country should come upon the vast mass of the taxpayers of the country for financial assistance for that particular industry. It is a system of subvention which has been denounced

    1497
    as much by hon. Gentlemen opposite as it has been by hon. Members on this side of the House, and I cannot believe that any fair-minded man opposite can really make a case satisfactory from his own point of view for asking when the whole country is suffering as it is to-day, that one industry should be selected for encouragement at the expense of all the other industries. In this particular case we have an even stronger argument to adduce against this subvention policy. Suppose the shipping industry in this country came forward—goodness knows the shipping industry is going through as hard times as any industry—and asked for a subvention from the Government of £3,000,000 a year, or more or less. If that subvention were granted, sooner or later would find there would be greater competition in the industry and the subvention would not remain in the pockets of the shipping companies, but would find its way into the pockets of the public in the shape of reduced freight rates. In the same way, if a grant were made for every pair of boots manufactured in this country, the result would be that more people would go into the boot industry, there would be greater competition, the price of boots would ultimately come down, and the subvention would find its way into the pockets of the public. In this particular industry that is not the case. In the case of a subvention to the agricultural industry it is admitted by hon. Members opposite that it would not find its way into the pockets of the public in the shape of cheaper food, but it would go into the pockets of the landlords in the form of increased rents. In the case of Scotland it goes directly into their pockets, and when we are told that in the agricultural districts, if you give more money to the landlords they will put more into improvements and into bricks and mortar, then one can only point out that that form of subvention is one that should, in decency, be accompanied by some guarantee that the money so received will indeed be spent as it is intended to be spent nominally by hon. Members opposite.
    10.0 P.M.
    In this particular case the concession given to the agricultural industry by the reduction in the rates upon land means that the landlords, by reason of that reduction, are able to demand higher
    1498
    rents or higher prices for the land. Indeed, this last raid on the public purse is but one of a long series of similar raids which have been going on for centuries. The landlords under Charles II got rid of their hereditary feudal burden by substituting land laws. Since that time the land taxes have remained, and there has been no attempt to revise them. Also, since that time more and more burdens have been taken off the shoulders of the landlords, and now in the Act of 1896 and in this present Act we are getting a repetition of the same thing, of people shaking the burdens from their own shoulders and putting them on to the public. These were hereditary burdens in the sense that the land was inherited subject to the burden of the poor rate and subject to the burden of local government expenditure. Land has been bought and sold subject to those charges time after time, and now we come along and say we will relieve the landlords of half, or two-thirds, or three-fourths of the burden, and the result will be that the prospective purchaser of the land, in making his purchase, will work out the fact that the rates are less than they were previously, and therefore he is enabled to make an equally good bargain by paying a little more in the capital sum in view of the annual drain of rates having been thus lessened. The natural result is that when a man buys an estate he is inheriting something more than the £3,000,000 which this Bill gives; he is inheriting the capitalised value of that £3,000,000 for something like 25 years. It will mean that when a man wants to buy land for productive purposes he will have to pay not his share of the £3,000,000 but his share of the capitalised value of those £3,000,000 in order to have the opportunity of using that land. That is what, I think, it is most important we should realise, that when the Government talk about this scheme, as they did on Second Reading, as facilitating employment, and helping the development of land, the immediate result of this scheme is to increase the price of land. If you increase the price of land, you make it more difficult than it was before for labour to get access to that land, and all production depends in the first place on labour's access to the land.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The newspapers show that there is any quantity of land

    1499
    for sale at the present moment, which cannot be sold because there are not any buyers.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The whole object of our party is to get that land cheaper, so that labour can get access on easier terms. The result of this Bill will be to make that land dearer, and therefore you make it more difficult for labour to get access. In that way you are creating more unemployment than there is to-day. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford asks, "Why are you down on landlords," and "Why should not the whole House join together in making this subvention?" Really, I do not think the landlords in this country would be as unpopular as they are to-day if they really understood what it is other people see them doing. The landlord, as a landlord, is not half so unpopular as the landlord sponging, and when we see the landlords sponging on the community, and at the same time talking as they do about the benefit they contribute to the human race, it is more than human nature can really stand, and if the landlords are going to get back into their ancient position of reputable popularity, they must give up this way of sponging on the community. It has become a positive obsession with them that the community exists for the benefit of the landlord, and that they are always entitled to take whatever they can from other people, whether from a submissive Government or in any other way. That sort of position is enough to make anyone unpopular.
    We object to this Bill because it selects one particular industry for a subvention at the expense of all the other industries. This Bill, in the guise of a subvention to an industry, is in England and Scotland putting money straight—I will not say straight in the case of England, but ultimately—into the pockets of the landlords—but straight in the case of Scotland, with the approval of the Conservative party—a strange aberration on their part, which will probably be heard of more in the country, and putting it ultimately into the pockets of the landlords in England, a point which will also be heard of in the country. Our third objection to this Bill is, that it does not give assistance to agriculture in any way which is really effective. It is always said that, there are people who farm the
    1500
    land, and people who farm the farmers. The people who are helped by this Bill are those who farm the farmers, but any assistance that is be of benefit to agriculture must help those who farm the land. You have got to deal with your rating problem, which is obscured by this particular solution brought forward by the Government. The Government admit that the whole rating problem has got to be taken up. They admit that this is only a stop-gap remedy. I hope it will only be a stop-gap remedy.
    A real scheme of reform must deal with the whole rating question. I have been listening all through the Debate to speeches of hon. Members on both sides, in which the whole burden seemed to be that what was wanted for agriculture was better buildings, better drainage, better fencing, better roads, and that expenditure, either by landlords or occupiers, upon improving the land produced more, and produced more cheaply. I wonder if it does not occur to those hon. Members opposite who were advocating that this scheme, by putting more money into the landlords' pockets, might enable these very desirable improvements to be made, that perhaps the best way of encouraging both landlord and tenant to build, drain, fence and generally improve the property would be to change the basis of rating completely and remove the rates which at present fall upon buildings and improvements. We attempted to amend the Bill in that direction. It was ruled out of order—I do not find fault with that ruling—because it was said that this was a Bill to relieve agricultural land, and not to relieve the improvements upon that land. That is the Bill, and so much the worse for the Bill, even in the opinion of honest men opposite who really want to see agriculture developed, to see two blades of grass grow where one grew before, by the application of labour and capital to the land in order to improve it.
    Surely if hon. Members are honest in their desire to encourage those improvements, by far the best way would be to spend exactly the same money which is to be spent in this Bill in taking the rates off land, which is not improved, by taking off the same amount of rates upon buildings, machinery, drainage and fencing and other improvements. That, obviously, would have been the way to benefit agriculture the most. May I point

    1501
    out the enormous advantage that any scheme of that sort would have for the smallholder, and particularly for the allotment holder—in fact, for exactly those classes who stand under this scheme to get no benefit at all, because it is notorious that the percentage of improvements upon a small holding or an allotment to the value of the land comprised in the small holding or allotment is much greater in the case of small holdings and allotments than in the case of big farms. Big farms covering an extended area will have good farm buildings, but the proportionate ratio of the value of land to the value of improvements is very much smaller in the case of the big farms than in the case of small holdings and allotments; so that if your scheme for helping agriculture by encouraging improvements, by increasing the number of small holdings, and increasing the number of men giving their time to it—if you are really going to help that, obviously, it would be infinitely better to remove the rates which at present burden improvements and use the £3,000,000 you are at present squandering by putting it into the landlords' pockets, and give a real benefit to agriculture by making those improvements less costly.
    There is no doubt that at the present time every one of the improvements which hon. Members opposite have been advocating, if put into practice by the landlord or by the tenant, would immediately result in a visit to the unfortunate ratepayer from the assessment committee, who would say to him, "You have improved your property, you have fenced it, you have put up new farm buildings, and a new shed for the new motor tractor, and, therefore, we are entitled to increase your assessment and charge you more rates." That is a direct discouragement of exactly the sort of improvements for which hon. Members opposite and on this side have been asking. The only difference is that hon. Members opposite do not follow their own ideas to their logical conclusion, while we on this side do attempt to do so. There is a further difference between us and hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members opposite want improvements in agriculture just as much as we do. Why do they not follow out that idea? Why do they not advocate the removal of rates from improvements in agriculture? For
    1502
    the very simple reason that they know that if those rates were reduced it would not be the landed interest that would get the benefit; it would not be hon. Members opposite who would find their incomes going up. The result of reducing the rates on improvements would be to cheapen the production of agriculture, and so bring about lower prices to the consumer; and, therefore, that is not one of the forms of reform which hon. Members opposite will support.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I fail to see how my income will be increased by this Bill.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Baronet says that his income will not increase by reason of this Bill. He may be an exceptional landlord who will not raise his rents. It may be that his tenants are paying far less than the economic rent, and that he will not seek to raise it. But there are others who are not quite such simple-minded patriots, and they may say to their tenants, "As your rates have gone down your rent can go up without your being any worse of." Those things which the right hon. Baronet in his position in this House dare not do others will do. We have to look to the position of the ordinary man. The fact is that the Conservative party are in power, and, as in previous cases when they have been in power, they are going to help their friends. This is a policy of spoils for the victors. The victors are opposite, and they take the spoils; but they might permit the victims to make some little protest, and point out to the victors that, though they are the victors now, others will be the victors in the future, and this wrong and others can be revised.
    What I am interested in at the present moment is the attitude taken up by the Liberal party. I wish the shade of Sir William Harcourt could visit the party. We have had speeches from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland), from the hon. Member for Denbighshire (Mr. J. C. Davies), and from another hon. Member—men who are nominally Liberals—urging a policy which the united Liberal party have opposed consistently for 30 years. They now come forward with the old, stale arguments that were used by Mr. Chaplin. One wonders whether Liberalism has not entirely left those benches and come on to these. It

    1503
    will be interesting to see whether they vote with the vested interests. I am confident that all that is best in the Liberal party will support us in voting against the Third Reading of this Bill, and in doing so they will perform a public-spirited action, and show that there are, besides the Labour party, people who are determined, in these as in other circumstances, to support the public interest against the vested interests.
    Mr. RILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do so because I am convinced, not only that this Bill is inequitable so far as the community as a whole is concerned, but that it will not achieve the purpose for which it is ostensibly brought forward. Although I think the Bill is fundamentally wrong, there would be something to be said for it if the Government had taken the precaution, in the provisions of the Bill, to arrange that the relief which they are asking the House to vote to agriculture really does get to the people who require it—if, for instance, in this Bill, they had done what was done when the Corn Production Act was passed in 1917, and had provided machinery whereby the occupier, in the event of his being called upon to pay an increased rent as a consequence of this relief, could have had his case submitted to the arbitration of an impartial court. If the Government had done that, if it had shown any disposition to safeguard the public money we are now being asked to vote, to reach the source and to serve the purposes it was intended for, something might have been said in justification of it, but nothing of the kind is done. We are asked to give the Government a blank cheque, to hand over £2,750,000 ostensibly to relieve the rates, but ultimately to reach the pockets of the landlord.
    We have been told repeatedly from the opposite side of the House that this relief will really stop with the farmer and none of it will go to the landlord. May I call attention to the experience we have had under previous Acts of this kind. There are two, the principal Act of 1896 and in economic effect the Corn Production Act of 1917. What is this Bill asking the House to do? The Ministry have issued a statement in which they gave examples
    1504
    of what is going to occur. On page 4 of this White Paper there is an actual case given. They suppose a rateable area of £12,000, of which £4,000 is the rateable value of the land and £6,000 the rateable value of the buildings, and they show that to such an area the Bill will give £500 to the occupier of the land. What difference is there in principle in the economic effect of that as against the effect of the Coin Production Act which gave a subsidy to farmers for the production of oats and wheat? In principle there is no difference at all. Speaking on the Agricultural Rates Bill in 1896 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said it was known for a fact that if this relief was not given rents would inevitably go down. In other words, the result of that Act was to save the landowners from reducing rents. That will be the economic effect of this Bill. It is to save the owners of land from reducing rents. As to whether owners of land have reduced rents or increased them in consequence of these subsidies, let me give the evidence. I am going to put in the witness box a Member of the House—unfortunately not in his place. The evidence is from the Royal Commission on Agriculture in 1919 and one of the witnesses was a member of the National Farmers' Union, Mr. Donaldson, and he was asked:
    "I am asking you for next year now what your view is as to what those prices ought to be."
    The reply was:
    "I should certainly say economic prices ought to be higher for next year in view of our having decreasing hours worked by the labourers which will mean increase of cost. Then again you are having increases of rent taking place. That will come into operation on a good many farms next year.
    11,505. Would the rent be about 66 per cent.?—I have cases of rent being raised 60 per cent."
    I will now quote the evidence of a present Member of this House, the hon. Member for the Kinross Division of Scotland (Mr. J. Gardiner):
    "13,008. Would I be right in inferring that in your opinion a guarantee would tend to raise rents?—And rightly tend to raise rents.
    13,009. It would raise rents?—I have no doubt of it whatever."
    That is the evidence of two witnesses at the Royal Commission. I can give other evidence. In 1919 there was issued a

    1505
    report of the Committee appointed by the Agricultural Wages Board to inquire into the financial results of the occupation of agricultural land on the cost of living. The section dealing with farm rents gives certain important information. It deals with 112 farms from which returns had been obtained. It has been stated that from 1895 down to 1915 rents in both England and Scotland for agricultural land decreased by 10 per cent. In 1915 we had the War conditions. This inquiry was held in 1919, two years after the imposition of the Corn Production Act, and here are 112 farms from which returns had been obtained, as the report says, "under great difficulties." They found people reticent as to what the increases were. There were 112 authenticated cases spread over almost every county in England, and the result was that, as compared with 1914, the rents on these 112 farms had risen from £27,252 to £32,500. In the case of farms in the Lincolnshire area the rise was 28 per cent.; in Cambridgeshire, 33 per cent.; in Essex, 23 per cent.; in Sussex, 22 per cent.; and in Norfolk, 26 per cent. Here is the evidence that the subsidy under the Corn Production Act in those first two years had had the effect of turning the decrease which had taken place from 1895 to 1915 into a gradual increase of agricultural rents I am not quite sure what the rents are to-day, but I have from my own district a concrete case which brings us down to 1922, and I find that, whereas the farm of which I have particulars had maintained a steady rent of £259, when it came to the year 1920 the rent suddenly rose by £87, and went up to £346. It maintained that rent through 1921. When the Corn Production Act was repealed there was a reduction on that farm of £40, which proves clearly that a subsidy, either in the shape of relief of rates or the price of corn, ultimately finds its way into the pockets of the landlord. We protest against this Bill, because we say that it is not a Bill to relieve agriculture. It is a landlords' relief Bill, and on that ground we will vote against it.
    Mr. BRUFORD: I came into this House while the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) was speaking. I did not hear all he said, which is possibly to my advantage. Since I have been listening to this Debate I have heard nothing but rubbish, which
    1506
    has been served up for consumption in the towns where people know nothing about the subject. The Proposer and Seconder of the rejection of the Bill would not dare to go into my county, in the country districts, and utter the words which they have uttered to-day. I do not believe that either of these Gentlemen would know the difference between a head of rye, bearded wheat, and barley. I have listened to a diatribe against the landlord, but not for the first time am I taking the landlord's part in this House. I am a tenant farmer, and I am grateful to the landlords. Nothwithstanding all that has been done against them by the Labour party and their friends, the landlords are still a great asset to the country, for this reason. They are still supplying a great part of the capital necessary to carry on the business of agriculture. Farmers who have got to buy their farms have very often to raise capital from the banks and pay a big interest. The landlord in many cases is not getting more than two or three per cent. for his money, and you cannot get money at that rate at any bank. Besides, the landlord does the repairs to a great extent and often helps his poorer neighbours. That is not thought about in this House.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme told us just now he would see that the action of the Government was understood in the country. I do not mind if he does that, so long as he will see that his emissaries tell the truth about the Conservative party and the landlord. [Laughter.] You can laugh as much as you like, but you know, as well as I do, I am saying what is true. We have been told that we are asking for charity. The Government are not giving us anything in charity. We are simply asking for our just due. For many years agriculture has been taxed on an unfair basis. I agree that we want a different basis of rating, but that is a big order and will take some time to effect. Meanwhile agriculture needs help immediately. I do not say that the Government are bringing in a Bill with no faults, but in the circumstances it is the best Bill they can bring in to relieve agriculture immediately.
    This money is not a gift to agriculture; it is a gift to the rest of the ratepayers, whose burden agriculture has been bearing for many years. It is the rest of the

    1507
    ratepayers that the Government are relieving to-day. They are simply saying, "We will take the unfair burden off agriculture, and rather than that the other ratepayers should bear it, we will take the money out of the Exchequer." Perhaps, fortunately, certain hon. Members opposite know very little about the conditions of agriculture. The talk about rents being raised 66 per cent. is utter humbug. There may be individual cases of that kind, but in the generality of cases rents have been raised sufficiently only to meet partly the increased cost of repairs, and in many cases they have not been raised at all up to now. There are old rents which have not been altered, and good landlords are not altering rents to their old tenants.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have followed this Bill through Committee and I wish to make one or two remarks before it leaves the House. I confess that the way the Bill has been discussed in Committee and on Report is a little ominous for the kind of legislation which we may see in future. You get a rather perfunctory discussion in Committee. You get a really important point, such as the question of the distribution of relief, whether it should be by a flat rate per acre, on which seven Members made their speeches, taking perhaps one hour, and the point is decided by 15 votes to six. That is excluded when we come back to the House. Other points which we considered were of vital importance are excluded. If that is the way in which Standing Orders—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is the third or fourth time that the hon. Member has made veiled criticisms of the Chair. I did not rise before, but I think it necessary to point out to him now that he must not do so.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I must express my apologies to the Chair, but it seems to me that the discussion, in Standing Committee, at all events, is exceedingly unsatisfactory at the present time, and leaves very little opportunity for real points to be made against the Bill. After having suffered a good deal from the reflections of hon. Members opposite, may I for once ask them if they would give us credit for an elementary knowledge of the subject? We know that hon. Members opposite are great authorities and
    1508
    experts who know their business. We do not dispute that, and we do not wish to be treated as in any way on an equality with them. But when they think they have an exclusive knowledge, and deny to us any knowledge of the elementary facts of the situation, one protests. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), for instance, in correcting some remarks which I made, gave some information which appeared to me singularly irrelevant, and then challenged a statement made by me about one particular branch of agriculture. I have got the latest figures issued by the Ministry giving exactly the percentage which I quoted, and all I can say is that, while the right hon. Gentleman no doubt is giving the average figure in his own sphere of experience, yet, on the average figures over the whole country, I was right and he was wrong. Apart from that personal statement I should like to make one statement about our general attitude towards the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), seeing a little party capital in it, I suppose, asked what was going to be the attitude of the Liberal party upon this Bill. I cannot speak for the Liberal party, but I think their attitude will be what it was in 1896. The party is divided now, as it was then. There was at that time a section of the Labour party who did not see eye to eye with the main body of the party and they supported the Bill of 1896 just as some support this Bill to-day. I admit and I have always admitted, that the farmers have a case for relief. There are various ways in which the Government might have dealt with that case and many suggestions were made. The case of the farmers was a general case; they had not a special or individual case, and their real claim lay in the fact that there are national services which are borne by local ratepayers' and local ratepayers have a claim for relief from the charge for these national services. Had the Government taken that method and left it open to the House to deal with the situation along those lines, I do not know that we could have objected, because the farmers and occupiers would have received, in those, circumstances, the same relief as that to which other local ratepayers would have been entitled—as for instance if the charges for education had

    1509
    been taken off the local rates. There might, again, have been introduced an arrangement such as was suggested by Lord Ernle, allowing the farmers to set off against their rates some part of their expenditure on manures or fertilisers. Again there might have been a division of rates between the owners and occupiers, but that is ruled out as being beyond the scope of the Bill. There might have been other arrangements for dealing with the matter, but some were ruled out by the Financial Resolution and others we could not put forward and the Government fall back on the bad old stereotyped method, the unintelligent method of granting relief. I am content to take the description given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford. He was asked before a Royal Commission what he thought of the method of relief and he said:
    "I think it is a bad method, because the land best able to bear the burden gets the most relief and the land least able to bear the burden gets least relief. That is inseparable from that form of relief and that is one of the reasons, I suppose, why it was made only temporary."
    He took a different line to-night. To-night he said that the relief goes to the man who has the heaviest burden, but that was not his view when he was requested to express his opinion before the Royal Commission, and I think his views before the Royal Commission are a good deal sounder than his views to-night. That is one of my real objections—that you have this old, bad system. The Ministry of Agriculture could not get out of its stereotyped and unintelligent rut. It had to do the thing in the way in which it had been done before. It could not bring a fresh mind to bear on the subject. It has left all the old objections entirely unrelieved, all the old grievances entirely untouched. It has refused any kind of Amendment. The most relief is given to the land that needs it least, and the least relief is given to the land that needs it most. Therefore, I think we are entitled to say that it is a bad method of giving relief. I do not quite agree with all that the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, because I do not think the effect of this Bill will be to increase rents. I do not think there is any doubt as to what the ultimate effect will be. The first advantage will go to the farmers in England, though some of it will go, of
    1510
    course, to the landowners, but ultimately I do not suppose there is any doubt that the benefit goes to the landowners. I do not think that is really disputed by the authorities, and, in fact, the way in which it will operate is that it will be a prop to falling rents.
    Rents rose after the War, and they went up, in many cases, 25 per cent. above pre-War level. That was an advance which was naturally asked for, and I do not wonder at landowners increasing their rents, but with the world fall in prices, it is quite obvious that these rents must come down, and when they come down, and in the process of coming down, is it not quite obvious what must happen? Here is a farmer rented at £100 a year, and he may get £10 out of this Bill in certain circumstances, but if the farmer goes round to his landlord and asks for an abatement—or perhaps he feels that he has got the 10 per cent. off the rates, and that, under the circumstances, he cannot ask for an abatement—but if he does, is not the obvious answer: "You have had the equivalent off your rate, and under the circumstances you cannot expect me to give you more"? Therefore, I think it will not raise rents, but it will be a prop to falling rents, and that is the economic effect which I think will be produced.
    I will not go over the whole ground now—I know it is very hot—but I want to protest against the sophistry, that has been repeated more than once, that this is not a grant to the farmers, but a grant to the non-agricultural occupiers, and that the money goes into their hands. The argument is this, that the rural occupiers get off their rents. If nothing were done, the non-agricultural occupiers would have to make up the deficit, and as the Government comes down and puts the burden on the whole of the taxpayers of the country, the grant is given, not to the people whose rates have been reduced but to those who would have had to contribute if it had not been for the Exchequer grant. To represent that as a grant, not to the rural occupiers but to another body is, I think, pure sophistication.
    There has been running throughout this Debate two lines of argument, and the Government stand first on one leg and then on the other. Sometimes it is the

    1511
    pressing distress of the farmers, and the fact that if we do not give this relief at once agriculture will perish. Then, when one points out that that will not take place, the Government turn round, and say, "No, this is part of our ideal system of rating, which is going to come in." That argument really will not do. There, again, it does not bear it out. This is not a redistribution of local burdens. If it were a redistribution of local burdens, the Government, as I should have thought they would have done, would deal with the whole matter comprehensively, and meet the case, not merely of the farmers, but of all the ratepayers. The Government are in a terrible hurry about this. They say, "We cannot possibly do all this. There is no argument against it, but if we do it we should hold up this relief, which must be granted at once." The Government need not introduce an ideal system if this were merely an alteration of the rating system; and if it were a redistribution of the rating system and an introduction to a better and more ideal system, then clearly they would not single out the Scottish landowners for preferential treatment.
    There are only two other points. In the first place, this is, of course, a dole to the agricultural interest. It is a contribution from the State. It clearly cannot save British agriculture. What does it mean? It works out at about 2s. per cultivable acre, which is perhaps one per cent. on the total agricultural product of the country. It works out at about £6 to each holder. No human being will say that that is going to save British agriculture. Many hon. Members have taken up an attitude of oven-handed generosity towards the farmers. They say, "They have had a bad time, let us give them something. Let us throw some public money about, rather heedless of where it comes from, or what its final effect will be. It will, at all events, encourage and put heart into the farmers for the immediate present; and it does not matter, it is only public money, and is only contributed by the taxpayers of the country. We may as well distribute it pretty indiscriminately, shutting our eyes to the fact that a good deal is going to those who do not want it, and that in a good number of cases it will go to people who have no claim whatever.
    1512
    There are two great objections to that line. In the first place, I must confess that I am one—I do not know whether hon. Members will believe it—who has a very honest respect for the capacity of the British farmer. I also believe that British agriculture is not going to be saved by these occasional doles, but by the practical skill and management of the British farmer. We know what he has done in the past; we know he produced a greater product in his crops in wheat-growing times than any other country. He has been passed now by some other countries, but that was his achievement in those old days, and, after all, his practical experience has built up the best herds of cattle and of pedigree stock in the world. I believe his brains and his practical skill will enable him to adapt himself and to alter his methods, and that possibly the Government may be able, by research and elsewhere, to assist him. I do not think that the Minister of Agriculture will be able to assist him very much by the arable dairy farming which he is at present carrying on. So far as I can make out, the right hon. Gentleman, when he tries arable dairy farming, loses never less than £1,000 a year on each farm. Something will be done, but it will not be by a policy of doles; and I believe that British farming will save itself by its own self-help and capacity.
    The other point is this: An hon. Member, speaking a little while ago, said he had made the discovery that the landlord was an unpopular character. I am afraid that is a fact. A little while ago I fought an election in a rural area. Under the surface I never saw a fiercer class war than that which raged in that particular part of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "And in the towns!"] And in the towns. A feeling has grown up that the landlord is a class of person who ought not to be permitted to exist. [Laughter.] It is no use laughing at that remark. I do not agree with the feeling in the least; but it is there, and it is no use ignoring it. Under these circumstances I think the landowners would have done better not to put themselves into an invidious and exceptional position, and to claim preferential treatment over other people. Any grievance they believe they have had better be remedied in a comprehensive scheme. No one who has watched what

    1513
    is happening to the agrarious revolution that is going on now in Europe can quite easily see that some drastic changes may come in our own country. Even in a land like Denmark, with its system of peasant proprietorship to steady the situation, the best step to the agrarious revolution is a proposal under which the big landowners had to surrender to the State one-fifth of their property, on a very small and scanty compensation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members say, "Hear, hear!" But there is a real danger. I recognise the services which have been rendered by the great landowners who have played their part in the improvement of agriculture. That, however, is not recognised by a large class, a large body, of the people at the present time. It is for that reason that I deplore that once more the Government have chosen to carry through a Measure that places the landowning class in a very invidious and false position.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: In a very few words I want to say something in favour of the wicked landlord. It has been said by hon. Members opposite that by reducing the rates on agricultural land the Government are benefiting the landlord, and that the advantages contained in this Bill will not be of use to the community which farms the land, but that the money will go direct to the pockets of the landlord. This, in my humble opinion, is a subtle half truth. I do not think any hon. Member will deny that by reducing rates and lightening the burdens, the capital value of land is bound to go up. But what I do deny is that the landlords throughout the country are going to raise their rents from the date this Bill becomes law.
    11.0 P.M.
    The agricultural industry to-day, as every hon. Member of this House knows, is in a parlous state, and no one knows that fact better than the landlords. The landlords, realising that fact, are not going to be so foolish as to reburden their estates before the industry is again on a flourishing foundation. Agriculture is like a tired horse; you must lighten its burden until it regains its strength. When it regains its strength you can then give it burdens which are equal to, but not more than what it can reasonably be asked to sustain. The landlord to-day is in exactly the same position as the tired
    1514
    horse, and he is not going to reburden his estate after the Government have given him a helping hand.
    I do not think hon. Members on the Socialist benches need have sleepless nights thinking that the landlords are going to break the agricultural industry, as the well-being of the tenant means the well-being of the landlord. The landlords, in my humble opinion, have been for many years the backbone of the agricultural industry in this country. The well-being of the landlords and the tenants means the same thing, and the landlords know that perfectly well. If the tenant is well off the landlord will be well off, and if the tenant is badly off the landlord will be badly off. The landlords are not going to cut off their noses to spite their faces. It has been said that the agricultural labourers do not want the rates on agriculture reduced, but that is not true, because last year a memorandum was prepared and submitted to the Government by the Central Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and the Agricultural Section of the Workers' Union, in which they say:
    "Upon the injustice inflicted on their industry by the present system of local taxation they are entirely at one. Realising that …. the effect of the present system is to withdraw capital which would otherwise be available for investment in agriculture, and reduce income which would otherwise be available to meet outgoings and maintain or increase wages, and thus seriously to prejudice the industry as a whole, they have made common, cause to express their urgent claims for the redress of an admitted and pressing grievance."
    Hon. Members may accuse the landlords of cupidity, but they cannot accuse them of stupidity as well.
    Mr. S. PATTINSON: I think hon. Members will agree that those engaged in agriculture are entitled to some consideration as regards rating. There has been confusion in my mind whether this is a grant or a dole. If I thought it was a dole I should vote against it. But I think it is a grant-in-aid of the rates. It has been needed for a very long time. Many public bodies have sent representatives up here claiming relief. I have taken two or three parties to different Government Departments to which they have pointed out the inequalities and injustices under which agriculture is labouring. It is only because I believe

    1515
    that the Government are giving this grant in relief of rates for three years and that then they intend to do something to alter the basis of local taxation that I shall support it. I have been interested to hear some of the arguments for and against the Bill. I think they have been worn rather thin. I noticed that the hon. Members for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) and for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) both used the same quotation. If they had had strong arguments they would not have done that.
    One argument has not been quite fully dealt with. We have heard a great deal about the occupiers of land near towns. There are in the City of Lincoln about 10,000 men out of work. In the Lincoln area are two rural councils, purely agricultural districts. The men receiving out-of-work relief in those two rural areas in the year 1922 drew about £700, but in the City of Lincoln the outgoing amounted to no less than £107,500, and these two rural councils have to bear their share of keeping the unemployed engineers in Lincoln. An hon. Member says, "Quite right"; but how have those rural areas benefited by the work of the engineers of Lincoln? Lincoln exports the whole of the machinery it manufactures to Russia and the East of Europe; it does not send any noticeable quantity into the two rural areas. Surely it is not the business of agriculturists to pay for the unemployed in large towns. In these two rural areas they are paying 4s. or 5s. in the £ for this purpose. They will get a distinct benefit under the Bill. One they would not have received if the benefit had been fixed at so much per acre right throughout the country. The time has long gone by when an inquiry into our whole rating system was due. If I am in the House in 1925 or 1926, when this Bill comes to an end, and if I find there is no attempt to remedy this injustice of local taxation, the House may depend on it I shall never vote for another Bill of this sort. I only vote for it now because I know, as chairman of the rates committee of the county council, that it is an urgent necessity that the farming community should receive some relief from the unjust burdens put on it during the last three or four years.
    Sir ERNEST POLLOCK: The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) be-
    1516
    gan his speech by telling us that the proceedings in Committee were exceedingly unsatisfactory. I certainly should not have used the word "exceedingly," although I could agree with him that they were unsatisfactory, and the point of view my Friends and I took why they were unsatisfactory was that the hon. Member for Derby occupied practically the whole time of the Committee. He spoke six times as much as anybody else, and used exactly the same arguments over and over again, and verbatim has reproduced much of the argument he used in Committee. He said he believes in the practical skill of the British farmer. So do I, but as the hon. Member told us in Committee that he himself was a farmer, I gathered that really means he believes in himself, and from that point of view I congratulate him, and I am very glad to think, whoever else has confidence in him, he has at least confidence in himself—a manly quality.
    We are told over and over again that by some other method we might have done some good to agriculture by taking off the rates locally borne for education, lunacy and so on. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that if that had to be done, it would be a matter of deep consideration over a long period of time, and agriculture, if it is to benefit, needs to benefit immediately. It is easy to say that we are really not doing something in favour of agriculture, and to be able to go down to the hustings and say, "I am not opposed to agriculture or to the farmers, but a better method could have been chosen." Those speeches are really opposed to the agricultural interest. Of those Members of the Liberal party, it may be said with Lewis Carroll, it is always jam yesterday and jam to-morrow, but it is never jam to-day. That sort of speech is of a dilatory nature, and is not intended to give any help at all to those who need it, and is really intended for a purpose ulterior to the main objects of this Bill, and to enable Members to found an argument, not understood in the constituencies, but understood in this House, to be a direct opposition to anything like relief to agriculture. Hon. Members have used the old argument, from 1896 onwards, that the landlords are going to increase rents, or, as the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) put it, that it is a prop against

    1517
    falling rents. Those observations were made in 1896, and have been repeated up and down the land, but every effort that has been made to try and find a single landlord who has raised a single rent has failed. After 27 years, up comes the old stuff, like a property from a side-show in a theatre, and we are introduced to these arguments again, but they have no foundation. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcatle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), wherever he hears of land or property, always sees red about rent and landlords. It is a warm day to-day, and I daresay he sees things in a brighter colour. The reason, however, for my intervention is to say that I support this Bill as one which is intended to give to the agricultural interest an overdue relief which is needed immediately, and to explain, so far as my words may reach, that those Members of the Liberal party who are pretending by some other method to offer some assistance to agriculture are really only endeavouring to confuse the issue, an issue on which they are definitely opposed to giving any relief to the greatest interest which this country has.
    Mr. ACLAND: I should like to begin, my remarks with a reference to a subject which has not been touched upon yet in the Debate, namely, the question how, if at all, the passing of this Bill will affect the labourer. The Labour proposal in the Bill was that on farms where the labourer was paid less than 30s. a week no relief from rates should be given, but I do not see how that would help the labourer very much. The Government hope is that the relief given in rates will automatically percolate through and the labourer will get his share. I want to make a suggestion which is, I suppose, intermediate between these two suggestions. I will not ask my right hon. Friend to make any comment upon it tonight, but would ask him to consider it later. We hope there will be, by the passing of this Bill, and in other ways, some improvement in the general agricultural position in those very much distressed Eastern counties and in other districts where they are already paying 30s. a week, which is, of course, below the standard of a living wage in the case of a man with a family. I would like my right hon. Friend to consider, not the immediate re-introduction of compul-
    1518
    sory wages boards, because I do not think that that is the most practical way in which to get a real improvement, but to consider whether he could not say, if and when he sees any little signs of improvement in the position of agriculture, that he expects the farmers to indicate to him from time to time—it may take a long time before things get appreciably better—by showing him their balance sheets and accounts through their branches of the Farmers' Union, that they are paying at any rate as good a wage as they can afford to pay, and that, on their position improving in this, and, one hopes, later, in other ways, he will expect a wage to be paid as good as the industry can afford; and that if he finds, by examination through his officers, that the sort of wage that they can afford is not being paid, he will have to come round to the position of considering the practicability of re-imposing wages boards.
    One of the ways of preventing what I think we all in different degrees want to prevent, namely, the advantage of this Bill being swallowed up by the landowners, is to see that as much as possible of it is transferred as soon as possible to the workers in those counties where we all lament the fact that the present level of wages is below the living wage on which alone a man can maintain a family satisfactorily. It is only by seeing that the benefit to the industry shall, so far as is possible be shared between the farmers and the workers, that we can prevent it from being absorbed in other ways. I have been surprised, not at the amount of disagreement, but at the amount of general agreement that there has been with regard to many aspects of this Bill. We all agree that it is not a permanent solution, that it leaves unsettled the most difficult, and in many ways the most pressing, of the present difficulties with regard to rating. We all, probably, agree that unless and until it is possible for the State to get somewhat nearer to a transfer of the present very heavy burden of Imperial services on the taxpayer, we shall not get anywhere near a final solution. But the attitude I have had to concentrate on perhaps rather more than my hon. Friend with whom I slightly disagree is, is there or is there not a quite clear and undoubted injustice in the present

    1519
    incidence of rating as between the occupier of agricultural land and other people of about the same type of means in our country districts. I have been trying to get facts and figures to answer that question. Rates ought to be paid presumably either on a man's ability to pay or on the benefit which he derives from the expenditure of the rates. The benefit a man derives is a personal thing. It is not measured by the amount of land he owns and if you are looking at the benefit a man derives you ought not to look at the amount of land he has to own in order to prosecute his livelihood but at himself personally, because it is not the land that gets the benefit from the expenditure on the roads, for instance. Most farmers would be only too thankful if the roads could be back in the condition they were in fifteen years ago. They would prefer not to have them brought to their present high state of efficiency for motor traffic. It is not the land that gets the benefit of expenditure on lunatics, the poor rate and so on. Those are personal things. It is not fair to call on the land as land to contribute if you are looking at the benefit derived. If it is derived from the person you must look at the person. When one looks at the person what does one find?
    I heard a speech by Lord Fortescue at South Molton the other day. He was seeking a fair comparison between the rates paid by a farmer and the rates paid by other people of about the same means and he had stumbled on a case in point. It has been stated in debate that there are other people who pay an unfair amount of rates besides the farmer, and the publican has been cited. Whether that be so or not Lord Fortescue's comparison was between the publican and the farmer and he had found that in 20 free houses—rates are no criterion in a tied house—where the question of compensation for abolition of the licence had come up before the authority with which he was connected, the rents averaged £50 a year, assessable value averaged £42 a year and the tenants of the houses had been able to show that their average income was £250 a year. Then he proceeded to argue backwards. The Inland Revenue argument with regard to the farmer is that his income his equal to his rent, and, therefore, it is fair to argue that a farmer whose
    1520
    income is £250 would be rented at £250. The man rented at £250 is probably assessed at about £200, of which £180 is on the land and £20 on the house, so that under the old Act of 1896 he is paying on £90 on his land and £20 on his house, or on £110 as compared with the £42 on which the publican pays, although they have the same reputed or presumed income. This Bill will have this effect, that instead of paying on £110 a year he will be paying on £45, on his land, instead of on £90, and on £20 on his house, or on a total of £65. That is considerably more than the £42 on which the publican pays, but, at any rate, £65 is nearer justice for the farmer than the £110 on which he was paying before. Therefore, it is on comparisons of that kind, and in the belief that it is not right to perpetuate what is clearly an injustice, that it seems to me right to support the Government in this effort.
    I hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) murmuring something about landlords. He must murmur "landlords" in his sleep. I suppose he suggests that I ought to deal with that aspect of the matter, and I will. My hon. and gallant Friend, and it may be other persons, in discussing this matter forgets the great rapidity with which the landlord, in the old sense, is ceasing to be an element in these things. It is rather a pity. Other people may think it is a good thing. The rate at which the landlord in the old sense has been disappearing since the War is a very remarkable thing. In the county with which I have the honour to be connected it has been happening very fast, and is still happening. Therefore, in a very large number of cases, the question as to whether the relief given by this Bill passes to the landlord, ceases to be a factor. The land has passed into the hands of the cultivator, or into the hands of some relative of the cultivator, and there is no longer the sharp division in family and caste between the landowner and the cultivator, and in these cases the relief given by the Bill will go to the man whom the House wants it to go to, namely, the cultivator, and it will be a very practical help in agriculture, so far as money goes.
    My hon. and gallant Friend may think it hypocritical if I do not say what I think of the Bill as a landowner myself. I confess, quite frankly, that I am much

    1521
    tempted to vote for the Bill as a landlord. I can resist everything except temptation. There were two classes of landowners after the War; one sold out and the other hung on. Many of those who sold out had to sell out, and many who sold out sold because they were tempted by high prices. Many of those who hung on, hung on though they knew they could have got double, treble or quadruple if they had sold out. Many, like myself, who managed to hang on have not made ends meet since hanging on, and I have been living on that detested and terrible thing capital. That is so in my case, and many hon. Members opposite must be in the same position. I am not so good as some landlords who kept their rents exactly as before the war. I put my rents up 10 per cent., but my expenses went up 100 per cent. Those landlords who hung on did not in many cases do so because they could afford it. It seems to me that those landlords who did hang on, with regard to whom their tenants have not had to buy their land, as those under the worst owners have had to do, with results which many of them are beginning to find out, do not deserve so badly of the State after all.
    But quite frankly I admit that the benefits under the present Bill must pass very largely to the landowners and away from the tenants. I do not think it possible to draft anything which would prevent, when any change of tenancy occurs, the benefit of this Bill passing largely to the landowner. To some extent I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend behind—that the benefit will pass to the landowner even during a sitting tenancy, because the tendency now under this Bill is for rents to come back again, and it is beyond human nature for a landowner not to argue with a tenant that if he has got considerable relief from the Government in rates he does not therefore need so much relief in rent. It would be hypocrisy for anybody to try to conceal that, and I do not think that anybody has tried to conceal it. Certainly in the case of new tenants no power on earth can prevent the tenant from offering the rent which he thinks he can afford, and the lower his outgoings in the form of rates and so on the more he can offer in the form of rent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you say that at Tiverton?"] Cer-
    1522
    tainly. I have never disguised the fact that I was going to support this Bill, partly because I was a landowner. I think that a great deal of the benefit will go immediately to the tenant and ultimately will pass to the landlord. I have been perfectly frank about it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Why should Poplar pay for that?
    Mr. ACLAND: My hon. Friend will not accuse me of arguing that this is the worst difficulty which is to be found anywhere in the country. I am only saying that where you find a class of persons who are paying rates grossly in excess of other persons of similar means, and the Government does come forward to remedy the injustice, it is not incumbent on me to argue that they must remedy every injustice.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Do you say that people whose rates are 24s. in the. £ ought to pay towards this relief?
    Mr. ACLAND: I do not want to enter into an argument with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that the taxes or rates of the people in Poplar will be raised by one fraction of a farthing by the granting of this relief. I shall support this Bill, because it will perhaps help the landord, though it leaves the general question entirely chaotic, and because it will give some relief, in my opinion, to the occupiers, with their great and I fear not decreasing difficulties in making their living from the land and producing the food from the land, and who have been unfairly treated in this matter of rating, and whom I think it is high time to relieve even though greater injustice may be left unrelieved elsewhere.
    Mr. WRIGHT: I have listened to the discussion the whole of the day, and have been particularly interested in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. Probably at no very distant date we shall be able to listen to him looking at his face instead of his back.
    Mr. ACLAND: Hear, hear! When our side wins.
    Mr. WRIGHT: One observation of the right hon. Gentleman struck me particularly. It was that wages were to be paid as far as possible; that is to say, the wages were always to be the last item.
    Mr. ACLAND: I cannot allow that statement. That is a wholly wrong impression to give of my speech. I was asked whether I had said something in the Tiverton by-election. What I stated was that I thought wages ought to be the first charge on industry, and I indicated to the Government that they should see to it that any relief given should be transferred to the workman.
    Mr. WRIGHT: I begin to wonder why I sit in this House at all. It is very seldom that I get into a Debate, and when I repeat exactly what has been, said this is the kind of statement that is made. Apart from what the right hon. Gentleman said, it stands as a true statement that the agricultural labourer is the last person to be considered in agriculture. We have heard a great deal about the landlord and the farmer, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not be unduly irritated if we refer to what we regard as the most important factor in agriculture from the human point of view. It is conceivable that we may have an agricultural system when we have no landlord. I hope the day will come when the landlord as landlord will disappear. An hon. Member opposite said that he wanted to say something in favour of the wicked landlord. I want to say something against the wicked landlord, because my ancestors and I have suffered, in common with hundreds of thousands of agricultural workers, from conditions of semi-starvation in what is one of the most important industries of the country. An industry which does not afford the essentials of a well-ordered life stands condemned. It can afford the landlord, with all his fox hunting—which costs £40,000,000 a year in this country—and the farmer, but the first claim on the industry should be the wages of the labourer, without whom there would be no agriculture. There has not been a word said on that subject to-day. The question is a very important one. We all want to see agriculture prosperous, but I do not believe in a system of subsidies or doles or grants as a favour to one section of the community at the expense of another. It is a very grave injustice to a large number of industrial areas that a Bill like this should be passed into law. I am speaking on behalf of a division where we have had many people during the last few years living under conditions
    1524
    of semi-starvation. Any industry which does not give its workers a reasonable standard of life should be changed, on the basis of the elimination of all needless factors until men and women engaged in the work are in a position to live upon their labour. I do not believe this Measure will bring the relief which is suggested. I was interested to hear an hon. Member opposite argue that no relief would come if, for instance, we made certain fundamental changes as between local rates and national burdens. Not very long ago a predecessor of the Minister of Agriculture, Lord Ernle, in a letter to the "Times" wrote as follows:
    "It is improbable that the farmers can lighten the burden of their present local rates by merely transferring it to the shoulders of other ratepayers but substantial relief will be given, if as is suggested by the Labour party, the cost of such substantial services as education, lunacy and main roads, was met by increased grants from the National Exchequer. By this means rather than by favoured treatment they are most likely to obtain relief. The change should form an item in the national policy, to go with such measures as can be effectively taken to prevent any diversion of relief from the occupiers to the owners."
    The hope for the recovery of the agricultural industry in this country—to which I have given a great deal of attention and in which I am deeply interested, not only from the point of view of the labourer but from the point of view of the nation as a whole—lies in the fact that what other nations have been able to do Britain can do equally well. It is generally conceded that as regards the land and the climate we are as fortunately situated as any other part of Europe. Denmark, after the struggle with Prussia in 1864, was very much reduced but Denmark has made an extraordinary recovery—largely by developing its agricultural resources on land which cannot be claimed to be superior to our own. Half a century ago, Denmark lost almost half its territory and was left with a heavy burden of debt. It had very little coal or other natural resources; it was a wind-swept country, yet since 1871 it has reduced its grass lands by half and doubled its stock and in the last 20 years while our agricultural returns remained stationary its crop yield increased by 24 per cent. One-third of the population is agricultural and accord-

    1525
    ing to a well-known writer the Danish peasantry are the most enlightened in the world.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will not pursue that line. To review the whole of Europe in this way would be outside the limits of a Third Reading Debate on this Bill.
    Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Member tell us from what he has been reading?
    Mr. WRIGHT: I defer to your ruling, Sir, but am only following the lines upon which other hon. Members have proceeded. One hon. Member opposite frequently lectures hon. Members on these benches for their supposed lack of knowledge of the agricultural industry, and as he did so to-night, it seemed to me legitimate that I should follow the line which he pursued. An hon. Member has asked me what. I am reading. I have great pleasure in telling him. It is from a small pamphlet called "The Farmer's Problem," written by a farmer, and contributed to a paper quite recently. But I could, if necessary, quote from the highest authorities in the last few months. Apart from that entirely, I venture to say that the great hope of dealing with this problem is the study and pursuit of agriculture upon a scientific basis. If that were done, it would be possible to deal with the problem on the lines we are advocating. We feel this is a very grave injustice to a vast number of our people, and I for one shall certainly vote against the Third Reading.
    Sir R. SANDERS: I am glad that the last speech has done something to bring the Debate back to the quietude we previously enjoyed, and away from the heat, which was rather unexpectedly engendered by the speech of my right hon. Friend, opposite. I think that speech really replied to the points raised in the course of the Debate, and I will not venture to go over that ground again. I think he put admirably the justification for relief of the rates on the ground, which I have ventured to urge two or three times in the course of discussion on this Bill, as the real ground for this Bill, namely, that the agriculturist was paying a great deal more than his fair share. A good deal has been said about what the landlords are going to gain by the Bill. I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite in believing that the
    1526
    first person who is likely to score by the provisions of this Bill will be the agricultural labourer.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid I did not say that.
    Sir R. SANDERS: Then I go one better than my right hon. Friend, and I say I think the agricultural labourer will be the first person who will gain by it, because he will get higher wages. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] Experience proved that when remission in rates was made last time. There was a little heat engendered in this Debate about landowners. I do not mind admitting there will be a distant and indirect advantage to the landowner. Any improvement that is made in the conditions of agriculture will undoubtedly give, in an indirect and distant manner, an advantage to the landlord, as it will to everyone engaged in the industry, and to make it a reason why you should not increase the prosperity of the industry that one of those engaged in it should possibly eventually get some advantage out of it seems to me the very worst logic, and the very worst system of legislation you could possibly devise.
    The question, of course, was raised in a much more acute form about the Scottish landlords. Like the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), I do not profess to be up in Scottish rating law, but on the broad ground I am quite ready to say that I hold that if the Scottish landlord pays more than his share towards local taxation, it is quite fair that he should get his measure of relief. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) said, "Why should the Poplar people pay toward any relief given to the agriculturist?" I do not want to have any heat or any excitement about that question, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to put the matter, quite gently and quietly, from the agriculturists' point of view—which is a point of view which has been raised to me by more than one agriculturist. In places like Poplar there are a great many men out of work. Very costly relief works are set up all over the country for the benefit of these men, and the agriculturist has to subscribe toward those relief works, although the number of agricultural labourers who are out of employment, and the number of unem-

    1527
    ployed in the country districts, is very small indeed. Further, the taxpayers all round, including the agriculturists, subscribe a very large sum—I have not looked up the amount, but it is very large indeed—towards the unemployment insurance fund. The agriculturists have to contribute to that fund, just as much as anyone else, but they get no benefit from it whatsoever. The point of view that the agriculturist takes is, that the towns have a good deal more unemployment than they have. It may be quite right—there is not much grumbling about it. They are sorry for the men out of employment in the towns—and they do not grumble at having to contribute their share toward this unemployment insurance and this relief fund, but they say to the townsman, in return, "When we show that a perfectly unfair burden is placed on us, we ask you not to grumble much when you are asked to contribute a trifle toward relieving that unfairness."
    I have tried to put the agriculturists' point of view to the hon. Gentleman as fairly and as plainly as I can. I do not know if I have convinced him, but I think it is a case to which a great many townspeople are ready to listen. We have evidence of that in the opposition to this Bill, which has really surprised me by its mildness, when I remember the opposition to the Bill of 1896—I was not in the House at the time, but I remember it—which was one of the fiercest oppositions ever offered to a Bill. It was then said, and it was believed to be proved, that enormous sums were going into the pockets of the landlords every year as a, result of the passage of that Bill. Yet, year after year, the Liberal party, which, in those days, had the honour of the adherence of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), in-
    cluded this hated and much-abused Bill—this landlord's Bill—of 1896, in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and, as a rule, without any protest being made against it.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Liberal party adjusted the balance by other measures of taxation.
    Major BURNIE: I am not an agriculturist, but I should like to explain why I intend to vote against this Bill. My ancestors were Scottish fishermen who lived in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Dumfries. My grandfather lived in the time when the Battle of Waterloo was fought. The then landowner enclosed a large part of the parish, and that is the land on which we are going to give relief to the present landlord by reducing his rates. My uncle erected his nets in the waters off the coast and was cast into Edinburgh Gaol for three months. These were all poor men. My father—[laughter]—I am sorry to go into these personal and family details—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—my father built a cottage for his mother and paid £7 an acre for land which was worth 15s. As I understand this Bill, the present inhabitants of the cottages, who are poor fishermen, will have to pay this rate in full, while the landowner who is a millionaire is going to be relieved directly by the Clause in this Bill of three-eighths of his rates. On these counts, which I think form ample ground, I intend to go into the Lobby against this Bill.
    Sir R. SANDERS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 98.

    Division No. 286.]

    AYES.

    [12 m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Blundell, F. N.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Clayton, G. C.

    Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

    Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Cope, Major William

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

    Button, H. S.

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

    Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

    Cadogan, Major Edward

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Berry, Sir George

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Dawson, Sir Phillip

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

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

    Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

    Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.

    Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    King, Capt. Henry Douglas

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Russell, William (Bolton)

    Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Garland, C. S.

    Manville, Edward

    Shipwright, Captain D.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Margesson, H. D. R.

    Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Singleton, J. E.

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

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Mercer, Colonel H.

    Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    Molloy, Major L. G. S.

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Stanley, Lord

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

    Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

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

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

    Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Halstead, Major D.

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

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Harrison, F. C.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

    Paget, T. G.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pease, William Edwin

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Peto, Basil E.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Pielou, D. P.

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

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Wells, S. R.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Privett, F. J.

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Houfton, John Plowright

    Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Hume, G. H.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Remer, J. R.

    Wise, Frederick

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

    Yerburgh, R. D. T.

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

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Gray, Frank (Oxford)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Paling, W.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Groves, T.

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Ammon, Charles George

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Attlee, C. R.

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

    Potts, John S.

    Barnes, A.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Richards, R.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hardie, George D.

    Riley, Ben

    Bonwick, A.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

    Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

    Briant, Frank

    Hayday, Arthur

    Rose, Frank H.

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Saklatvala, S.

    Brotherton, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Salter, Dr. A.

    Buckie, J.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Burgess, S.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Snell, Harry

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)

    Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

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

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Tout, W. J.

    Chapple, W. A.

    Lansbury, George

    Trevelyan, C. P.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

    Warne, G. H.

    Clarke, Sir E. C.

    Leach, W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Collins, Pat (Walsall)

    Linfield, F. C.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Collison, Levi

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    M'Entee, V. L.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    McLaren, Andrew

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Duncan, C.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Dunnico, H.

    March, S.

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

    Ede, James Chuter

    Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

    Wright, W.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Millar, J. D.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Morel, E. D.

    Falconer, J.

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

    Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn.

    Gosling, Harry

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 78.

    Division No. 287.]

    AYES.

    [12.10 a.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

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

    Peto, Basil E.

    Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Pielou, D. P.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin

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

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Privett, F. J.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

    Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

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

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Halstead, Major D.

    Remer, J. R.

    Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

    Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Berry, Sir George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Harrison, F. C.

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

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

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

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Bonwick, A.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Russell, William (Bolton)

    Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

    Houfton, John Plowright

    Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

    Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)

    Hume, G. H.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Button, H. S.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

    Cadogan, Major Edward

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Shipwright, Captain D.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.

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

    Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

    Singleton, J. E.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Clarke, Sir E. C.

    Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    King, Capt. Henry Douglas

    Stanley, Lord

    Clayton, G. C.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Linfield, F. C.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Collison, Levi

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Cope, Major William

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

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

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Manville, Edward

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)

    Margesson, H. D. R.

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

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

    Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Wells, S. R.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Mercer, Colonel H.

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

    Molloy, Major L. G. S.

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

    Wise, Frederick

    Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

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

    Yerburgh, R. D. T.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Paget, T. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

    Garland, C. S.

    Pease, William Edwin

    the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    NOES.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Gosling, Harry

    Barnes, A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gray, Frank (Oxford)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Collins, Pat (Walsall)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Briant, Frank

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Groves, T.

    Broad, F. A.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Brotherton, J.

    Duncan, C.

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

    Buckie, J.

    Dunnico, H.

    Hardie, George D.

    Burgess, S.

    Ede, James Chatter

    Harris, Percy A.

    Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

    Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Morel, E. D.

    Snell, Harry

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

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

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Tout, W. J.

    Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Trevelyan, C. P.

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Paling, W.

    Warne, G. H.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)

    Lansbury, George

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Lawson, John James

    Potts, John S.

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Leach, W.

    Richards, R.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Lee, F.

    Riley, Ben

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

    Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

    Wright, W.

    M'Entee, V. L.

    Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    McLaren, Andrew

    Rose, Frank H.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Saklatvala, S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    March, S.

    Salter, Dr. A.

    Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn.

    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir William Joynson Hicks): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a hardy annual, although I do not know whether there can be anything hardy in this weather. As the House knows, there is no possibility under the rules of Order to discuss any particular Act on the Second Reading of this Bill, but on the Committee stage it is open to any Member to move the expulsion of any particular Act from the Bill or the insertion of any act in the Schedule. The Committee stage will be taken early next week, and it will be open to anybody—
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Early in the day?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As second Order, probably on Tuesday next.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: By the "second Order" does the Financial Secretary mean that the first Order will be one that will run till 11 o'clock? That would not be of much use to us. Will it be early in the afternoon?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury says he hopes to put it down as the second Order after the East India Loans Bill, which I do not think will take more than an hour, or, at the outside, an hour and a half. That will give full time, and I hope that, as everyone is anxious to get home, it will be convenient to the House—[Interruption].
  1534
  Very well, in that case I am here as long as anyone likes, and shall be prepared to answer any case that may be made against the Bill. In order to show my desire to meet the convenience of the House, I beg formally to move the Second Reading.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: I want to put one question which I think will clear the air. We are now discussing the Workmen's Compensation Bill in Committee upstairs, and are getting on very nicely, but I am afraid we shall not get through the Bill soon enough to get it passed during this part of the Session. We are trying to do so, but in case we are not successful I should like to ask whether the War Additions Act will be included with the expiring laws that are to be continued for the next 12 months?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): It is not the case that the War Additions Act will continue after the 31st December next. I hope, however, that we shall get through the Committee stage of the Workmen's Compensation Bill after one, or at the most two, more sittings, and I understand from the Patronage Secretary that, if it can be agreed that we should get the Report and Third Reading in one day, we should be able to find time for the Bill before the Recess. There is a great deal to be said in favour of that, especially after we have had 12 or 13 days' thorough discussion in Committee. The Measure runs no risk by not being inserted in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, because I understand a pledge has already been given that, if it is found impossible to get it through in one day and finish it before we go away for the holidays, it will be taken at the earliest possible moment on our return, which will give plenty of time before the 31st December for the new Measure to come into effect.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am somewhat disarmed by the appeal which has been made by the Financial Secretary, and to a lesser extent by the promise as to the hour at which the Bill will be taken. I had intended to move the rejection of the Second Reading and to divide the House, but, with the permission of my hon. Friend who was to have seconded the Amendment, I am not proposing to do that. I do want to point out, however, that last year a Select Committee was set up to inquire into this Bill, and into the scandal of always bringing it on late in the Session, usually late at night, and having what Sir Donald MacLean used to call a "middle-aged lark" by way of sitting up all night discussing important Measures affecting large classes of the community, and not really giving those Measures proper consideration. It was a perfectly respectable Committee. Major-General Seely was the Chairman, and it included no less than three Members of the present Government, namely, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the Paymaster-General, and the Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. They sat for many days, and brought out a lucid and careful Report, which was signed by those three Members of the Government, and from which I will read one or two salient sentences.
  They say that, owing to the fact that the Bill is invariably introduced at a very late period of the Session, there has been and can be practically very little discussion of it. Of course, we know that the Chief Whip is always taken by surprise at the rise of temperature in July, when the nights get warm and people want to go home, but he ought to foresee that and bring the Bill on earlier. The Committee went on to say that over a long series of years this system was both slovenly and dangerous, because Measures that were meant to be temporary tended to become permanent, and often delayed proper legislation by a partial solution of the problem involved. How can the Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health sit there tranquil, complacent and satisfied, after having signed such a Report, when we again see this Bill brought on late in the Session and late at night? The Committee stated that they were of opinion that, as they had already suggested, the
  1536
  process of continuing temporary Acts from year to year actually afforded, in some cases, an excuse for not dealing with the subject-matter in a comprehensive way. They suggested that there was no reason why the Bill should not be introduced much earlier in the Session, when proper Parliamentary time could be allotted for its discussion. I should like to know whether the Paymaster-General approached the Chief Whip and protested against this practice being repeated. It is a fact that the Committee did weed out the Schedule of the Bill a good deal, but too many important Measures still remain in it. I beg the Chief Whip to take this matter seriously. I understand he has read the Report of the Committee, and I think we ought to have some different system in regard to continuing these Acts, because otherwise great injustice and irregularity may arise. As we have been promised an early discussion on the Bill, I will reserve my remarks as to details until then.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should like to ask whether the time proposed to be given next week is, in the judgment of the Government, really sufficient, having regard to the fact that the Schedule runs to nearly five pages, every one of which contains Acts of great importance, and that very vital principles are involved. I ask that question especially because of our experience to-day. I notice that one of the Measures included in the Schedule deals with the subject we have been discussing, and upon which we have just been closured. Does the House really consider that part of a Parliamentary day is sufficient for the detailed discussion of all the Measures set out in the Schedule to a Bill which has been introduced practically without discussion on the Second Reading at 25 minutes past 12 at night?
  Again, we have been discussing in Committee upstairs, for a somewhat protracted period, a Bill which has some reference to an Act included in the Schedule to this Bill. I should like to ask whether the fact that the Government includes again in the Schedule the Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920, and the Sale of Food Order made under that Act, indicates that they have decided to give no Parliamentary time to the Bill, the Committee stage of which has just been concluded after 19 sittings? That is a point of substance to those of us who are interested in the matter. We

  1537
  think it is a Bill which ought not to be given Parliamentary time.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That can be raised on the Committee stage. We never deal with these details on Second Reading.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to. Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next (16th July).—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

  LAUSANNE CONFERENCE (BRITISH DELEGATION'S EXPENSES).
  LAUSANNE CONFERENCE (BRITISH DELEGATION'S EXPENSES).
  AGRICULTURAL EXHIBITION, MOSCOW.
  AGRICULTURAL EXHIBITION, MOSCOW.
  SAAR VALLEY (ADMINISTRATION).
  SAAR VALLEY (ADMINISTRATION).
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
  AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS (POLL TAX).
  AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS (POLL TAX).
  ROYAL NAVY (BOYS).
  ROYAL NAVY (BOYS).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  VEHICLE TRADE (TRAINEES).
  VEHICLE TRADE (TRAINEES).
  OMNIBUS CONDUCTOR'S LICENCE (J. A. GORE).
  OMNIBUS CONDUCTOR'S LICENCE (J. A. GORE).
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  COAL INDUSTRY (SAFETY) APPLIANCES).
  COAL INDUSTRY (SAFETY) APPLIANCES).
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  RAILWAY WORK.
  RAILWAY WORK.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  IRON AND STEEL TRADES.
  IRON AND STEEL TRADES.
  COST OF LIVING INDEX.
  COST OF LIVING INDEX.
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  POOR LAW ASYLUMS (PRIVATE PATIENTS).
  POOR LAW ASYLUMS (PRIVATE PATIENTS).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT.
  CASUAL PAUPERS (MEALS).
  CASUAL PAUPERS (MEALS).
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (SICKNESS BENEFIT).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (SICKNESS BENEFIT).
  MEDICAL AID SOCIETIES.
  MEDICAL AID SOCIETIES.
  RAILWAY MILK VANS.
  RAILWAY MILK VANS.
HOUSING.
  COASTGUARD HOUSES, DONAGHADEE.
  COASTGUARD HOUSES, DONAGHADEE.
  RATE OF CONSTRUCTION.
  RATE OF CONSTRUCTION.
  ASSISTED HOUSES (RENTS).
  ASSISTED HOUSES (RENTS).
  CONTRACT PRICES.
  CONTRACT PRICES.
  LABOUR COSTS.
  LABOUR COSTS.
  COST OF CONSTRUCTION.
  COST OF CONSTRUCTION.
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  SCHEMES, SURREY.
  SCHEMES, SURREY.
  CONSTRUCTION STATISTICS.
  CONSTRUCTION STATISTICS.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (DELAY).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (DELAY).
  KENYA LOAN.
  KENYA LOAN.
  WOMEN POLICE.
  WOMEN POLICE.
  WAR COMPENSATION COURT.
  WAR COMPENSATION COURT.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS).
  IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS).
  TANGANYIKA (BRITISH TRADERS).
  TANGANYIKA (BRITISH TRADERS).
  EXPORTS, KENYA.
  EXPORTS, KENYA.
  BEEF (PRICES).
  BEEF (PRICES).
PEACE TREATIES.
  MERCANTILE MARINE (REPARATION CLAIMS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (REPARATION CLAIMS).
  AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY (REPARATION).
  AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY (REPARATION).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
  PUBLIC SERVICE (ANDERSON COMMITTEE).
  PUBLIC SERVICE (ANDERSON COMMITTEE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

LEGITIMACY BILL.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, in asking the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Salisbury) a Question of which I have given him private notice, may I remind your Lordships that after the debate last: week, when the Legitimacy Bill was read a second time the question arose as to the time for taking the Committee stage. There seemed to be general agreement that the Committee should, if possible, await the attendance of the Lord Chancellor. That would mean postponing the Kill till the Autumn Session. Would that course imperil the passing of the Bill—a Bill which passed both Houses on Second Beading without a Division, and was brought up to the House of Lords in very good time. The dilemma is serious. The noble Marquess was asked to say whether the Government would undertake that the Bill should not suffer by being relegated to the Autumn Session. He could not answer at the time, and I now beg to ask him whether he can give the House any information.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend for giving me the opportunity of making this statement. He has quite correctly recited what passed on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I have made it my business, in accordance with the pledge which I gave to your Lordships, to find out what facilities could he given for the discussion of this Bill in another place on the consideration of the Lords Amendments, supposing the further proceedings on this Bill were postponed until after the Recess. I am now glad that I am able to inform your Lordships that the Government consider that the request which was made upon the point by the noble and learned Viscount
926
opposite and other noble Lords is a perfectly reasonable one and that if the further stages of this Bill are postponed until after the Recess the Government will afford in the House of Commons reasonable opportunity for considering the Lords Amendments.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I am sorry myself that the Bill should be postponed, but the consideration offered by the noble Marquess is, of course, a real one. It might have happened in the stress of business in the Autumn Session that time would not have been found for a discussion in the House of Commons and inasmuch as that assurance has been given I think that those who are supporting the Bill in this House would be well advised to accept it.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I am muer, obliged to the noble Marquess, and so far as I am concerned I readily accept what he proposes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to take this opportunity of informing the House that it is definitely arranged now that there will be a statement upon the Ruhr at the beginning of business to morrow. I have to apologise to the House that the Finance Bill appears upon the Paper to-day. By an arrangement which was made that Bill had been postponed until Monday. I think that nothing is ever the fault of the officers of the House and the appearance of the Bill on the Paper to-day must have been due to a mistake on the part of one of us, but it ought not to appear on the Paper to-day. It will be taken on Monday.
TEES VALLEY WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
STALYBRIDGE, HYDE. MOSSLEY AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, on this Motion I should like to be allowed to say a few words and to ask a question of my noble friend who represents the Home Office. It is a question which arises out of certain correspondence which has taken place. I desire to express my feelings of obligation for the assistance I have received as the result of that correspondence. But I feel some difficulty concerning this particular Bill, or rather as to one paragraph of the Schedule, paragraph (3), which your Lordships will see on page 3 of the Order. It reads as follows:
"A minister who has solemnized any marriage referred to in the first and second paragraphs of this Order shall not he liable to any proceedings for penalties whatsoever or to any ecclesiastical censure by reason of having solemnized the marriages."
I am not concerned with the question of the merits of this or any other Bill. My difficulty is that I am unable to find any authority for this provision in the Provisional Order in the Act of 1905, under which the Provisional Order is made.
The operative portion of that Act, which I have before me, says:
"A Secretary of State may, in the case of marriages solemnized in England which appear to him to be invalid or of doubtful validity by reason of some informality, make a provisional order for the purpose of removing the invalidity or doubt."
It is quite clear that a Provisional Order can be made; but those who drafted the Act did not insert a provision enabling this indemnity to be given to the clergyman who officiates—who may be acting perfectly rightly but may, of course, be acting perfectly wrongly—until what has gone wrong has been put right
928
by Parliament. The matter is important not so much from the point of view of this particular Provisional Order as from the point of view of all Provisional Orders. The Provisional Order system is one created by Parliament to facilitate legislation on certain lines and I think it is obvious that it would be very inconvenient if those lines were to be departed from. To a very great extent the Provisional Order system is in substitution for the familiar one to which Standing Orders and the Borough Fund Acts, and so on, apply. Those things do not apply to Provisional Orders, and if we misuse the privilege of Provisional Orders we are avoiding the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House and kindred provisions which safeguard these matters.
I do not for a moment desire to ask my noble friend in charge of this Bill to alter it, but I think I should be lacking in my duty to this House if I did not point out that the practice of Parliament ever since the passing of the Act of 1905 has been somewhat irregular and that, though Parliament can do anything almost, I do not think Parliament should act irregularly. I would therefore invite my noble friend to make some statement upon this point. I would remind your Lordships that it is usual to put into Provisional Order Bills a provision that a Minister in making a Provisional Order may do anything that he may deem to be necessary in the way of supplemental provisions for the purpose of carrying it out in a satisfactory manner. It is noticeable that no such section is to be found in the Act of 1905, and I would suggest to my noble friend that when His Majesty's Government have time to look into this matter and to consider it at greater leisure and in greater detail, it might be advisable to fill up this blank in the Act of 1905 and so regularise our procedure and make it more in accordance with what has been the practice since the passing of the Act.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, my noble friend has called my attention to this irregularity and I admit everything that he has told your Lordships. I propose, therefore, to explain how it has grown up. It has been the custom ever since the validation of marriages by Provisional Order procedure was made possible by the Act of 1905, from which my noble

929
friend quoted, to draw these Orders in accordance with the precedents contained in the earlier public Acts called Marriage Legalisation Acts. It was under those Acts, of course, that marriages were validated. So that for the past eighteen years, a provision relieving the officiating minister of liability to any proceedings for penalties or to ecclesiastical censure has been inserted in Provisional Orders of this kind.
My noble friend has called attention to the fact that in the 1905 Act there is no saving clause whereby the Secretary of State can add anything of that sort to a Provisional Order; but so conscientious have my Department been that they have always called your Lordships' attention to the fact that the minister has not been culpable. I should like to say that the Act of 1905 does not in terms authorise the Secretary of State to include such a provision in the Order, but it does expressly state that the Order shall be of no force unless confirmed by Parliament. Therefore, although the Secretary of State may have tempted Parliament to err in this direction, it is really Parliament which has committed the error. The authority for the relief of the officiating minister from any consequences of his act is therefore not the Secretary of State but Parliament. I venture to hope that my noble friend will agree that in the present case it is desirable to exculpate the minister
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without Amendment.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

AIR POLICY.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE VISCOUNT WIMBORNE had given notice to move to resolve, That in view
930
of the growing importance of Air power the contemplated expenditure in the Naval and Air Estimates respectively is disproportionate. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, since tabling the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper a very important pronouncement has been made in another place by the Prime Minister on Air policy. That declaration is, I claim, in principle an admission of the gravamen of the case which I submit to your Lordships, but it must be admitted that it is a very belated step to take to remedy the situation of which I am complaining.
What is the present position with regard to our Air power? I would remind the House that the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, told us in March that if we contrasted the relative strength of our own Air Service with that of the nearest Power to us, and the greatest Air Force in Europe—I mean the French Air Force—our position was this. There were thirty-four British aeroplane squadrons as against 140 French ones, and there were 395 machines as against 1,260 machines. But there is a more interesting comparison even than that. He went on to say that if you took the Home Air Services of England and France you would find that the British Air Force had only ten squadrons, although there were four squadrons at the Dardanelles which might be expected to be only temporarily absent—you could call it fourteen squadrons in England—as against 111 in France.
The Prime Minister, in his statement in another place, on June 26, used these words:
"In addition to meeting the essential Air power requirements of the Navy, Army, Indian and Overseas commitment", British Air power must include a Home Defence Air Force of sufficient strength adequately to protect us against Air attack by the strongest Air Force within striking distance of this country."
He went on to say that an addition of thirty-four squadrons to the Home Defence Air Service of this country was contemplated, bringing that Service up to fifty-two squadrons as against the 140 squadrons which the French possessed. I think that since that time the French have also increased their Home Air Force. He also said, and I am sure we are glad to know it is in his mind, that he would

931
welcome very much something in the nature of the Washington understanding with regard to Air power. If limitation could be effected by common consent he would welcome that very much. I hope your Lordships will not let that be a mere pious wish, but that the Government will endeavour so far as they can to promote something which may lead to a limitation of air competition as well as naval competition.
That statement of the Prime Minister contemplates a great aerial expansion of our forces. The defencelessness of London, to which some of us have drawn attention, is now to be remedied. The paradox of the far-flung battle line of Empire resting upon a vulnerable home base is to be repudiated and remedied. I am sure that the statement of the Prime Minister has been received with very great satisfaction and relief in the country. We are glad to know that the policy of "Safety first" is to guide us in our Defence and Imperial policy. I think I may claim that your Lordships' House is to be very much congratulated for the step which the Prime Minister has taken, because I believe it is largely due to the debates in this House, and notably to the contributions to those debates by my noble friends Viscount Grey of Fallodon and Lord Birkenhead, that the Government have at least become alive to the fact that the situation as it is to-day is extremely unsatisfactory and that we are in a most unpleasant and precarious position with regard to the safety of the Capital of the Empire.
But the disproportionate expenditure upon the Navy and the Air Force, to which I draw attention, has been modified not by a redistribution of the £80,000,000 at present spent upon the two Services, but by adding another £5,500,000 to the Estimates. That fact is only partially concealed by the circumstance that of the £5,500,000, only £500,000 will appear upon the Supplementary Estimates this year. Therein, I think, lies the main defect and weakness of the Prime Minister's proposal. The satisfaction of present needs by a system of deferred payments is a very common device, whether in national or in domestic economy. These payments have a way of maturing, and then it is that the shoe pinches. I remember that the noble Marquess the Deputy Leader of the House, in reply to some observations I
932
made on this subject not long ago, indicated in rather an airy way that we had plenty of money. How he can say that in view of the excessive taxation——
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said that.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: The noble Marquess will excuse me. He said that we had plenty of money for both Air defence and naval expansion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I said was that we were not so badly off but that we could afford expenditure which was absolutely essential.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: He indicated that money was not going to stop us; that plenty of money would be forthcoming, not for wasteful or extravagant objects but for objects which were considered necessary for the defence of the Empire. How he can say that in face of the taxation to which we are subjected, in face of stagnant trade at the present moment—last month has been the worst since the war—the amount of unemployment, the unsettled condition of Europe and falling revenue, I fail to understand. If the situation were much more favourable than I have indicated, if the noble Marquess is right that money will never stop us from such a policy as is deemed necessary for the defence of the Empire, I still assert that when you come to budget all Estimates are always competitive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is approached by all the various Services clamouring for money for their needs, and in that process there is always a competitive element. I assert that so long as the old Blue Water school enjoys an undisputed and unrelated supremacy so long the growing needs of the infant Air Service are likely to be inadequately provided for. The existing situation proves this; and the situation will recur.
The defence of London is, after all, a tardy afterthought to the grandiose conception of the naval base at Singapore. I should like to know, in regard to that naval base, whether it does not, in fact, violate the spirit of the Washington Pact. It is just five degrees over the line drawn by that Treaty, and perhaps the noble Marquess will tell me whether the Washington Pact precludes Japan or America from establishing fresh naval bases within the prescribed area, and whether we are able, by just going over to border, to do what Japan and America

933
will be unable to do within the Pacific itself? The Singapore enterprise is typical of what I call the undisputed supremacy of the naval school. What is the Singapore base mainly designed to achieve? It is to accommodate the new battleships, the new super-Dreadnoughts, which we are building. A controversy now rages round the question as to whether battleships are, and to what extent they can remain, an effective unit of sea-power, and on a highly technical subject such as that noble Lords will no doubt have strong opinions.
Opinions differ, but it may be interesting to give you the opinion of some of the experts on this question. Sir Percy Scott, and he is not alone, puts it rather tersely and expresses the anti-battleship school. He draws attention to the fact that in the old days the battleship dominated the ocean, guaranteed British sea-borne trade, blockaded enemy ports, and so forth; but to-day he says—
"A battleship cannot go to sea in the daytime unless surrounded with destroyers to protect her from submarines. A battleship cannot go to sea in the daytime unless accompanied by an aeroplane ship to guard her from aeroplane attack. At night she runs the double risk of being sunk by submarines and torpedo boats. A battleship cannot blockade the enemy's ports; she must keep a long way from them. A battleship cannot be hidden from the enemy airman's eye. Battleships in harbour cannot protect themselves from aircraft. Battleships must be locked up in safe harbours during war time to protect them from submarines."
If there is any truth in this it shows that the question of the value of the battleship is in dispute, and whether it is right or wrong, at any rate we may confidently assert that the battleship is a very costly and a very vulnerable unit of Imperial power.
I observe that the aeroplane carrier to which Sir Percy Scott alludes costs between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000, to say nothing of the fleet of torpedo destroyers and smaller craft by which a battleship is always accompanied. I also notice that as the missiles to which a battleship is subjected increase in penetration so the armour plate grows thicker and thicker. It almost suggests the comparison of the mediœval knight in armour confronted with the development of fire, or our Cavalry confronted with the system of trench warfare. It is an arguable point as to whether the battleship before long
934
may not become out of date, whether this costly engine of war may not prove to be too vulnerable for the task allotted to it.
The question which arises is whether in our scheme of Imperial defence we have not lacked some imagination and prescience. Before we embarked on this big scheme at Singapore, a scheme which is to cost £10,000,000 in the course of the next few years, to accommodate the big battleships, the value of which is somewhat hypothetical, I claim that more regard should have been paid to the already partial conquest of the air and the prospective complete mastery of that element, and to the part that that element is certain to play in future warfare. It is because the Government have shown too little recognition of the new factor which has arisen during and since the war and too great a tendency to tread old beaten tracks that I venture to submit this case to your Lordships' consideration.
Moved to resolve, That in view of the growing importance of Air power, the contemplated expenditure in the Naval and Air Estimates respectively is disproportionate.—(Viscount Wimborne.)
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW): My Lords, it may be convenient that at this stage, and on behalf of the Department I represent in your Lordships' House, I should make some reply to the points put forward by the noble Viscount. He seemed to claim that the announcement made by the Prime Minister in another place, and by my noble friend the Leader of the House in your Lord ships' House, as to an increased strength for the Air Force was some admission, I think he said, of the gravamen of the case contained in his Resolution. I was a little astonished to hear the noble Viscount put forward that thesis. As I read the terms of his Resolution they suggest this and nothing else—that too much money has been spent, or is to be spent, upon the Navy and too little upon the Air, and because the Government decide to spend more money on the Air in order to make the Air Force adequate to carry out its proper functions, we are told by the noble Viscount that this is an admission by the Government that too much money has been spent on the Navy. I observe that the noble Viscount did not move—I do not know whether he proposes to move at a later stage—but if he is prepared to ask

935
your Lordships to affirm a Resolution of this sort on a matter which, whatever view one may take of it, is at least a most serious one, I hardly think the House will be prepared to support him.
From the naval angle, the noble Viscount's questioning—for he is not very certain himself, and I do not call it an attack but a questioning—divides itself under two heads. In the first place, he doubt" the wisdom of the proposed naval base at Singapore; and in the second place, he questions the future usefulness of the battleship. Before I proceed in detail to attempt to meet the noble Lord's points, let me say that I do not quite agree with him that, even if one admitted—as I certainly do not—that the battleship is to be of no effective value in the next war, then the case for a base at Singapore goes by the board. After all, what my noble friend seeks to do is to establish in this House the principle that aircraft are able, or will in the near future be able, to do what battleships can do to-day, or did yesterday. But aeroplanes will have to have a base, and the noble Viscount may not be aware that——
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: Not a naval base.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I will come to that in a moment. It is proposed to provide a flying ground at Singapore. The noble Viscount has spoken of the large aircraft carriers in which he envisages the battleship of the future. Will not these carriers have to be docked? Will they not have to be repaired after action? Could there be a better place than Singapore? I do not wish to delay the House with any detailed recommendation of Singapore as a site, because the noble Marquess the Deputy-Leader of the House went into this case only a few days ago, but I may perhaps run very briefly over the points which he then made. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, also expressed this view when he spoke on this subject the other day. If there is to be a base in the Far East, Singapore is by general admission the best site available. It is obviously the gateway from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean; it is the focal point of all commerce in the East, and flanks the great systems of sea communication in the Indian and Pacific Oceans; it is easy of defence; and—no mean consideration—
936
there are in reasonably close propinquity oil fields in Burma, and also, as the House knows, in North Borneo.
The noble Viscount asked whether in effect, in spirit if not in letter, the decision to establish this naval base does not violate the Washington Treaty. That is an amazing doctrine to hold. The naval experts who worked these matters out at Washington had a map with them. I hope the noble Viscount has a map with him when he considers this question. It was well known to all the experts who considered this matter that Singapore was regarded by the British Admiralty as an ideal place for the establishment of a naval station, and yet we are told that the decision to establish this station is a veiled threat or insult to some other Power. I wonder, when the noble Viscount goes out in his motor car along the road and when he observes a policeman whether he reduces his speed from nineteen to sixteen miles an hour lest he should be accused of hurting the constable's feelings.
May I briefly recapitulate the strategic value of the proposed naval base at Singapore? In the first place, the presence of such a base will render mobile and effective the British fleet in Far Eastern waters. I do not know whether the noble Viscount realises that it would, in fact, be quite impossible, or at any rate impracticable, to engage in hostilities on an important scale without the provision either of this base or of some other base in that part of the world. At the present moment there is no dock nearer to Singapore than the home docks which will accommodate the most modern type of capital ship. It is proposed a few years hence to provide such a floating dock at Malta, but when you work out the problem in terms of time and space, you find that to do a two days' job on a ship with the fleet in the neighbourhood of Singapore, you have to send that ship back through the Canal, let us say—to make the strongest case we can for the noble Viscount—to Malta, do the two days' job and send the ship back to the fleet. At 16 knots that would take about 40 days. Warships are complicated structures, and if they are to keep their efficiency they have to be docked and cleaned from time to time, or they lose speed and in consequence their steaming radius is curtailed.

937
But apart from that, conceive a general action having been fought in Eastern waters. The necessity for sending ships damaged in action, and with their speeds reduced by such damage, long voyages, unescorted by lighter craft, would subject such damaged ships to very grave risk of total loss by attack from enemy submarines. If no base is provided at Singapore, those who are responsible for the safety of the Empire would have to detach from the Home Fleet a larger proportion of capital ships and a larger proportion of lighter craft in order to make due allowances for the weakening of the fleet owing to the time required for all repairs and overhauls. I say detached from the Home Fleet because I am assuming that the central idea of the Washington Treaty may hold good—I hope it may—until the end of the term set out in the Treaty, but when unchecked construction returns, if ever it does, then, of course, the problem before those who will have to decide upon the Naval Estimates of the time will be, unless there is some base, to make a very important addition to the Fleet of those days in order to allow for the weakening of the Fleet in the circumstances I have described.
But, the whole notion of making allowance in that way is quite amateurish and wrong, because it can be shown that, if regard is had to the relative values involved—namely, £10,500,000 in several years for the base against some £7,000,000, with all accessories, for the battleship—the establishment of a naval base at Singapore is by far the cheapest way of making British sea power effective in the Far East that can be conceived. It is sometimes said that we got along well enough in the war without such a naval establishment in the East. I do not deny—no one denies—that the naval concentration in the North Sea, against the German menace, was necessary and inevitable, but let there be no mistake, that concentration, necessary as it was, was paid for in blood and treasure. What about the " Emden " and the " Moewe," gallivanting over those seas: The " Emden " destroyed 68,581 gross tons, and the " Moewe " 154,637 gross tons, of world shipping. Is it to be supposed that if there had been, at the time of the great war what I may call the normal dispersion of the British Fleet, those German
938
raiders would have been allowed to steam up and down the seas sinking unarmed craft at will?
There is another interesting illustration of the price paid for this concentration. It will be within the memory of your Lordships that at the Dominion Conference of 1911 there was an agreement come to for the establishment of what was then called the Empire Pacific Fleet, consisting of three battle cruisers, the "Australia," "New Zealand " and one other, but, of course, that scheme could not be carried out owing to the necessity of concentrating our naval forces in the North Sea. But that that conception was sound events proved up to the hilt. The " Gneisenau " and " Scharnhorst," under von Spee, did as they liked with Admiral Cradock's squadron. If three battle, cruisers had been in the Pacific the battle that was fought at the Falkland Islands might have been fought earlier in the Pacific, and Admiral Cradock and his gallant men might not have gone to the bottom. I do not, however, want to enter into the controversy which rages about the subject at the moment. It may be that concentration was neces sary. Often in war it is necessary to face minor losses in order to achieve more important successes; but, nevertheless, the fact remains that it was necessary for us to detach two battle cruisers to go out to the Falkland Islands to meet von Spee, in command of the German squadron. What might have happened if we had not been fortunate and skilful enough to hit off the Germans at the Falkland Islands, or what might have happened if von Spee had turned to the south and raided the ships off the African coast, may well be imagined.
Then, it is right, in a discussion of this sort, to point out that public opinion in the Dominions and the Colonies is favourable to this scheme. Your Lordships will have observed that the New Zealand Government in its wisdom has asked the New Zealand Parliament to vote £100,000, to be spent either towards the cost of Singapore, or, on the advice of the Imperial naval authorities, on some internal defence work in New Zealand; and Parliament and the country will learn with a lively sense of gratitude and pride that the Government of the Straits Settlements has decided to make a free gift of the land required for the naval base, namely, 2,250 acres, and of the land

939
required for the aerodrome, namely 597 acres. It is also to be hoped—1 think there is a considerable chance—that there may be further contributions forthcoming from other Dominions. But it is not merely the populations of the distant Dominions who are concerned and whose interests are bound up with this question of the command of the sea.
The noble Viscount in this connection asked whether it is the view of the Government that the capital ship remains an important and overwhelming element in the maintenance of the command in sea power. The answer is that the battleship is still considered as the supreme unit of naval power. I want to take the noble Viscount, in considering this point, on to ground with which he is far more familiar than I am, because I think I can convince him that sooner or later, from whatever angle you examine this question, you come back to the capital ship. In all periods of naval history there emerges some one type of ship which is supreme in her time, and it is in the nature of things that this should be so. The capital ship, after all, is an attempt by designers and constructors to embody in one unit the maximum of offensive and defensive qualities. Your specialised ship (if I may use that adjective) is, of course, more effective than the battleship in any one direction. Your destroyer goes faster, but you can put a service bullet through her skin: your cruiser is lightly armed, she is very fast, she has a wide cruising radius, but those advantages are gained at the expense not only of lighter armour but also of lighter guns, a smaller crew, and so on. Supposing I go to the length of visualising the future from the noble Viscount's point of view, and try to make the great aircraft-carrying vessel the capital ship. The noble Viscount shakes his head. The capital ship does not, after all, mean a battleship. It means only the supreme unit at any moment.
VISCOUNT WIMBOBNE: What I said was that the capital ship needed an aeroplano carrier to protect it against aerial attack.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: Yes, and we propose to build aeroplanes and aeroplane carriers to protect them from that point of view. And I wish we heard a little more from the noble
940
Viscount about the defence by aeroplanes of battleships attacked from the air. If the noble Viscount is with me—and he admite that sooner or later you come back to the capital ship—then I do not desire to press the argument any further, because that is my whole case. And, on a day so hot as this, one is obliged to any one who makes a part of one's case for one.
There is one matter in regard to which I would venture to warn the House, and that is that in discussing this question of the battleship, which touches the offensive value of the bomb and the torpedo, it should not be lost sight of that the gun remains the supreme weapon. There is a very telling passage in Mr. Winston Churchill's book. " the World Crisis," which brings out this point. He is describing how von Spee's squadron approached the Falkland Islands without, of course, the slightest idea that our ships were there, and he says
"The 'Gneisenau' had continued to approach until she saw the fatal tripods, whereupon she immediately turned round and made off at full speed."
Those are Mr. Winston Churchill's words. The tripod masts are the hallmark of the capital ship, and the big gun spoke the doom of von Spee. Before the sun went down Cradock and his men were fully avenged.
The noble Viscount also made great play with the containing capacity of the submarine in relation to the battleship. He almost suggested, though he did not say so in terms, that the Grand Fleet was bottled up in its defended bases during the whole war. That really is an illusion. It is true that at one stage, and as regards the attack on unarmed craft, the German submarine was extremely effective, although it is just as well to point out here and now that no modern battleship engaged on any side in the war was sunk by a torpedo fired from a submarine But the sequence of development in a weapon is always the same. First, it comes as a surprise and has all its own way: then the technical and tactical minds at work on the problem react, and the defensive is developed; and it is only when the defensive is fully developed that the weapon may be seen in its true position in the series of armaments.
No one knows more about either the use of submarines or the means of countering

941
submarines than the British Admiralty. The technical advisers of my right hon. friend are absolutely confident that the submarine menace was completely held and cheeked at the end of the war. Has the noble Viscount forgotten the vast fleets which brought the American Army across the Atlantic without one single loss from submarines? Furthermore, it is the view of the Naval Staff that the submarine defence has developed since the war, and is now developing, at a rate very much faster than the effectiveness of the submarine as an offensive weapon.
It may interest the House to know that in order to make plain to the public that the Battle Fleet did occasionally go to sea in the great war it is proposed to issue for publication a track chart showing the movements of the Grand Fleet and important capital ships during the period of hostilities, and anyone who happens to have known anything or to have read anything, about the activities of the Grand Fleet will believe me when I say that you can hardly see the North Sea for those tracks. Then the noble Viscount said the battleship reminded him of the days when men dressed up in armour and when, owing to the improvement in weapons, "hey had to give up protection in order to take advantage of greater mobility: they took off their heavy armour, the greater activity which was the result paying them better than the protection. Has the noble Viscount forgotten the tank in the last war?
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: The tank was not a naval weapon.
THE MARQUESS OF NLITHGOW: Nor was the gentleman in armour: you do not see gentlemen in armour walking about on quarter decks. Then the noble Viscount says a battleship is no good because it cannot do without light craft. Whoever heard of an Infantry division going into action without an advance guard? I do not pretend to have studied these things with the profound attention which has been given to them by the noble Viscount, but I at least know that. The noble Viscount was a little shy on this occasion of bringing before your Lordships the experiments carried out by the United States Government on the " Ost Friesland" and the "Iowa." He produced them on the last occasion, but probably in the interval he has made himself familiar with the Report signed
942
by General Pershing, who was the chairman of that Committee.
I take leave to read a few extracts from that Report which is, of course, the considered opinion of the American experts in this matter. The Report says:
"Inasmuch as these experiments were not conducted under battle conditions it is difficult to draw conclusions "—
They are talking, of course, about the experiments of dropping bombs on to the decks of battleships, which, after the experiments had been carried out for some time, did result in the sinking of those battleships——
"as to the probability of hitting a target with bombs from aircraft while in action. Under the favourable conditions existing during the experiments—namely, stationary, or practically stationary, target, immunity from enemy interference and excellent visibility and flying conditions, the percentage of hits was greatly in excess of that to be expected under battle conditions.
"The probability of hitting will be reduced in the case of a target moving at high speed on varying courses; further reduced if the target vessel is protected by effective anti-aircraft armament; and practically negligible if the target is protected by effective pursuit planes. On the other hand the probability of hitting will be increased by more efficient sighting and bomb-dropping control apparatus, by further training and further development of aerial tactics.
"The battleship is still the backbone of the fleet and the bulwark of the nation's sea defence, and will so remain so long as the safe navigation of the sea for purposes of trade or transportation is vital to success in war.
"The air-plane like the submarine, destroyer and mine, has added to the dangers to which battleships are exposed, but has not made the battleship obsolete. The battleship still remains the greatest factor of naval strength."
I read that first because it does appear from his utterances in your Lordships' House and outside that the noble Viscount is not very much impressed by the professional acumen of the naval advisers of my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. I think ho is wrong in that. I think the present Naval Staff, of proved and tested judgment and skill, as the result of their leadership in the great-war, is probably the most competent body that has ever advised the Minister responsible for the conduct of the British Navy. For my part, and without the least incivility, I desire to say that I prefer their advice and opinion to those of the noble Viscount.

943
Sea power and the advantages which it gives may be very briefly stated. Sea power gives to the nation that enjoys it the power to move and sustain forces overseas, to carry munitions across the seas and to carry foodstuffs and commercial cargoes. It gives also the power to deny all these essential advantages to an enemy. If it is not asking too much on an evening of this sort, I would ask your Lordships to stretch your imaginations a little and visualise a moment when the noble Viscount has, for some longer or shorter period, had an opportunity of giving executive effect to his views on these questions. Let us assume that a dangerous moment is at hand in the East. Public opinion makes it plain, as public opinion always does on those occasions, that it desires that British naval power should be exerted towards the maintenance of peace in the East. I am going to give the noble Viscount something like omnipotence in this matter. I am going to make him Defence Minister with control over the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. It would be an awkward moment for him. He would have to say: " I am very sorry, I cannot send the Fleets to the East. There is no base at which they can be repaired, and no defended ports where they can refill their oil tanks." But he would say: " Mind you, London is safe: it will not be bombed.'' After all, troubles nearer home are often the most important to people in difficulty, and that might satisfy public opinion or part of it for a few days. Then disconcerting and uncomfortable news would come in about the loss of shipping on the trade routes; not merely on the trade routes of the Atlantic, but on those across the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, and the public would come to the noble Viscount and would say to him: "Stop this." And he would have to say: " I am very sorry, I cannot. We have lost command of the sea. But, mark you, London will not be bombed."
Then, I suppose, that would happen in the future which has always happened in the past—the young men of this land would want to take up arms and go to meet the enemy abroad. But the noble Viscount would have to say: "I am extremely sorry; it is very awkward, but I cannot send you because we have lost command of the sea and we cannot send our transports. But there are two or
944
three vacant places in the Air Service, and we can send a couple of men and boys over to-morrow afternoon if it is a fine day," or something of that sort. That would be extremely awkward for the noble Viscount. " But," he would add, "London will not be bombed." Nor would it. Within three or four weeks the public in this country would be getting hungry and angry, and they would go to the noble Viscount and, with terrible voices, would ask him for food, and he would say: " I am sorry, I cannot give it to you: I have lost command of the sea." Then, if he were unwise—because it is always unwise to talk lightly to hungry and angry people—he would add: "It may be that a couple of boxes of biscuits and a gruyere cheese will comes across in an aeroplane to-morrow, if it is a reasonably fine day, and—London will not be bombed." Why should it be bombed? Why worry with bombs which kill tens, hundreds or thousands, when starvation kills all? Without the bombing of London the Imperial power of this country would pass from her hands and Britain would be on her knees.
I do not really quarrel with the noble Viscount for the efforts that he and others have made to persuade the British public to take an interest in the Air. I do not know whether he will consider me a worthy recruit, but I am not ashamed here and now to say that I am with him. I think it most necessary that the public should understand how completely conditions have changed in many respects owing to developments in the air. I am not altogether unfamiliar with the exigencies of propaganda. Your Lordships may have heard a delightful expression which is often used on the other side of the Atlantic. They say over there: " It is the wheel that squeaks the loudest that gets the grease." The noble Lord has made some very eloquent speeches in favour of more expenditure on the Air Force.
Now, in all seriousness, I think that the noble Viscount and his friends are perfectly right in driving home to the public the necessity for greater expenditure on the Air, and His Majesty's Government have shown in no uncertain fashion that they do appreciate the menace of the Air. But what I venture to challenge and what I hope we shall have no more of in the

945
future is this attempt to suggest to the public mind that Air power is alternative to naval power. It is not. It is complementary. I, for one, hope that the noble Lord in his splendid work of bringing home to the British public the true state of affairs as regard" Air power, will not think it necessary to descend to suggestions which are both mischievous and unfounded.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships' attention to a grave omission from the speech of the noble Marquess who has presented to us the prospect of Estimates so large that nothing but necessity can justify them, and the question is what ease has Le made out for the necessity? Of a great deal of the case I will make him a present. I am the last person to question any decision come to after sufficient examination by a competent Naval Staff. If they say that the battleship is to be in the future, as it has been in the past, the dominant element in the Fleet, very well, I pay great attention to that deliverance. If they say Singapore is a very desirable place in which to have a naval base, then I am ready to accept that completely. But the question which I put to them is: Why do they want it? It is a very convenient thing, and a very excellent thing, to be able to dominate the Pacific, but we who sit here ask: What is the justification for incurring an expenditure of a character to which I will call attention in a moment, and which will cripple us for everything else, merely for this purpose? Against which country are you preparing to defend yourself; Is it the United States, or is it Japan, or is it some other Power?
As for command of the sea, I am entirely with the noble Marquess. I have always believed in sea power as being the basis of military power, and of every other power in this country, but Germany, which was the country that seriously menaced our command of the seas, is now obliterated, and is likely to remain obliterated for a very long time. Therefore I fail to see that our general command of the sea is at this moment in any peril. By all means see to it, and watch it. There are many things which a competent staff can do. No doubt there were lacunae in what was done in the way of preparation for the late war. I do not think sufficient study was given
946
to the question of the protection of trade routes. We had a debate in this House on that subject about a year and a half ago, and we got a Paper about the organisation of the Naval War Staff from the First Lord of the Admiralty which did not satisfy me as it did not satisfy a good many other people. I remember that it was only late in 1911 that the Navy got a General Staff or a Naval Staff at all, and therefore you cannot expect them to have developed that instrument to the perfection we require from it in so short a time. It may be that there is much to be done. We ought not to have such incidents as the escape, and the absence of means of pursuit, of the " Moewe " and the " Emden," and of the presence of so large a squadron as that of Admiral von Spee without proper means of protecting ourselves against it. Those were possibilities which should have been thought out and worked out by the Naval Staff between the end of 1911 and the beginning of the war. But the time was obviously very short in which to do it and the organisation of the Navy was somewhat old-fashioned. Any of your Lordships who want proof of that have only to turn to Lord Jellicoe's book on the subject, in which he sums up various things which he thinks were not thought out.
But I am not here to ask your Lordships' attention to that. I make the noble Marquess a present, as I have said, of the desirability of Singapore as a base in the abstract, granting that it will give complete command and domination of the Pacific, if that be a desirable thing, and I also make a present of the battleship principle. But what I am concerned about is the question why that is a necessity. I use the word deliberately. We have no money at this time. We have little enough left, as I shall show presently, and the demand of the Air Force is a much more urgent demand than any naval demand which is in existence just now. There are other demands besides. There is the demand for money for housing, there is the demand for money for education, and there is the demand for money for public health.
The noble Marquess casually mentioned, in an easy-going way, a sum of £10,500,000 to be expended upon the Singapore base. I will assume—it is a rather sanguine assumption—that £10,500,000 will be the

947
limit of the expenditure. For my own part, looking back to the experience of the past, I do not believe that it will be. But I will assume that £10,500,000 is to be the expenditure. It is said, in the comfortable and easy-going way that Admirals have when they meet a group of friendly Members of Parliament in the Committee rooms of the other House, as they did the other day: " Oh, it will be very small at first, only a couple of hundred thousand to begin with." And perhaps that will be diminished by the generous gift from the Malay Straits, to which the noble Marquess alluded. Then the next year it is not to be very much. But I am thinking of the year after that. By that time, for the construction of this naval base, it will not be a question of hundreds of thousands of pounds, but it will be a question of millions of pounds. Then we shall be told: "You have no discretion. We have committed ourselves;. We have promised the Admiralty to find the money, and we have entered into contracts which involve us. We cannot, without moral, and probably also legal, delinquency, fail to find the funds."
Where are those funds to come from? Where are we going to get sums of two and three million pounds, and the succeeding million" that will in future have to be found? I do not know whether the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, if he takes part in this debate, will inform us that the Government is going to revert to the policy of borrowing for naval purposes. We used, in the good old days, when we wanted money for the Navy, to borrow it and add the amount to the National Debt, Then came the time at which the conscience of the nation revolted against that, and said: " No, we will put the expenditure down in the Estimates, and the money shall be found and discussed each year." God help the Government, if they have to discuss these sums in years when we are still in the lean condition that we are in to-day, and in which we are called upon to provide money for social improvement.
I remember very well, when the housing policy of the Government only a few months ago was not in the vigorous and flourishing condition that it is now said to be in, what was the position of this great strong Government which had then just taken office. Not only could the
948
Government not gain a seat, but its Ministers were not even re-elected when they tried to get back seats which their appointment to office had rendered vacant. Even this great strong Government showed signs of being hurled out by the breath of democracy. If a short time after this, the Government finds itself in a situation in which it has to say: " We are sorry to tell you that we require £2,000,000 this year for Singapore, and that there can be no money for housing, for education, or for social development beyond the most exiguous amount," what will the country say to that? We have a vast democracy. I think a rather conservative democracy, but a democracy that can be roused to passion. If the democracy is roused to the gusts of passion to which it was last autumn, then God help the Government and God help the Admiralty.
The first thing the Government ought to do is to make out on behalf of the Admiralty that this demand which is being made for the expenditure of £10.500,000 is an imperative demand required by conditions of national safety which cannot be resisted. I am with the noble Marquess now leading the House when he says that for purposes of necessity we must get money somehow. We may have to borrow it, we may have to forego other things, but we have to get it when the case is one of absolute necessity. But is this a case of absolute necessity? I want to analyse this a little more deeply than it appears to have been analysed in the considerations which have been put before us up to now. Why is it that we want this base at Singapore? As I have said already, it would be a nice thing to have if we had an abundance of money, though I am not sure that Singapore is just the best place for the base, but from the strategical point of view I will assume that it was selected on the advice of the Naval War Staff.
What do we need it for? What Power is it that the Admiralty have in view? And is it a Power which we shall be likely to have to fight alone? Any war in the future will be a war in which we shall be more likely to come in alongside other nations than a war in which we shall be alone, but for my part, in the present condition of things, I am very reluctant to consider any war as a kind of possibility which is so practical that it is

949
necessary to put every other necessity of the nation aside in order to provide for it. Do you think that Australia would not be ready to help you to the extent of assisting you to make enlargements of harbours which would take in the great battleships? I am taking the situation in which not what is most convenient and most comfortable is to be considered but what is vitally necessary, because that alone can justify anything approaching the expenditure which is contemplated.
There is a second consideration. You cannot do this, you cannot make a base which is to dominate the Pacific, without moving other nations. I agree with the noble Marquess that the Admiralty have worked this out and find a very slight but sufficient margin of safety from the Washington line. They are within their legal rights, but it is not your legal rights which count most in questions of this kind. What counts most is bringing a new menace into the world: and if you do something for the purpose of dominating the Pacific then you raise a new menace in the world which will receive attention. I am not suggesting that it will mean war, but that it will lead to movements on the part of other Powers is almost inevitable. In that condition of things I want to know on whose advice this proposition, so grave and fraught with such momentous consequences for the rest of their programme in the country, was taken.
I am not without some experience as to how these things happen. The Admiralty is an enterprising Department, which commands public confidence. It may have been said: "We had better have a base at Singapore in order to give confidence to the public." Then it gets a little further, and perhaps the Government is attending to other things and thinking of other things. You may have, and will have, the matter considered in the Defence Committee, but questions are considered in the Defence Committee when they have got a little way on. My experience of the Admiralty is that there is no body more ruthless in holding tight to any promise they can make out to have been given. But the Admiralty is a Department of State, controlled by the Government, and the Government cannot be bound by any promise they have given to the Admiralty. They must reconsider the whole situation de novo, and perhaps the noble Marquess,
950
Lord Salisbury, will tell us how the Department primarily concerned with great questions of foreign policy, came to think that the chances of war in the Pacific are such as to justify the expenditure which will sweep and mop up everything else. That is my first point.
The second point is this. The case of the Air is one that is much more urgent than this demand for security in the East. People do not realise that we are now a Continental nation. We have no sea frontage. It is a little stretch of sea which can be crossed with the utmost ease, and that will be the case more so as time goes on. Therefore, we are in a new situation. It is not command of the sea that is sufficient, although I do not underestimate it; it is command of the air which is necessary, so far as home defence is concerned. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that we are going to increase the number of squadrons and provide a Home Defence Air Force which will be able to take care of us. I entirely approve of that, but when I ask myself what this means, I find that it is a much larger proposition than when it is put merely in a few sentences. What I am insisting on is that it is a pretty big business.
By a great misfortune we have simply destroyed our organisation so far as the Air was concerned since the war. We put an end to it. I do not know why or how, but I suspect that it was because people did not stop to think. Anyhow, the organisation of the Air Force has gone and it has to be developed de novo. I believe it is being developed with the utmost thought and concentration, and that the Government have the advantage of earnest and able men who are giving them assistance in this matter. But my point is that it is not a quick business or a cheap business. To have a proper Air Force you have not only to have your first line but some sort of second line. I do not care for the name territorial in this connection. Yon will have to have skilled people who will develop and expand the first line when it is suffering the fearful depredations which a first line always suffers in case of attack. This will have to be built up, and it is going to cost money. It is a good thing because it will help the national industry of aerial transit and carriage, but still a burden will fall on the Government for a long

951
time, and it will want a good deal of money. I am in favour of that money being spent. My point is that it is the first necessity, and what I want to hear in the course of this discussion is something in the way of figures to show how the Government propose to provide this money and yet raise these millions for Singapore, which is a progressive increase in Estimates year to year.
I hope I have satisfied your Lordships that the Air Force is the urgent, and Singapore the second, consideration. I say nothing of the other factors which come in. We have a very large programme on hand. The Government cannot stand still. I will not call it a Socialist Government as was done the other day, but it is a Government with a large programme of social reform. Pledges have been given which have to be carried out. They all mean money—I hope well spent when it is spent, but they mean money—and how is that money going to be provided? If you go back to borrowing you will have the economists down upon you. If you provide it from Estimates, then when you come to the Income Tax payer he will not be quite so kind to your proposition at Singapore as when you addressed flaming meetings throughout the country and got millions passed by people who had not considered the cost to their own pockets.
To me the situation is a very serious one. I am a detached person; I am not much concerned in the interests of any Party. Causes interest me more than Parties, and I have no desire to injure the position of the Government, or to turn them out. I have risen tonight for the purpose of making; an earnest appeal to them to consider whither they are going. They are going, as it seems to me, into a situation of great peril, and I am afraid they are going rather blindly. The remedy is in their own hands. They must say to the Admiralty: " You must prove your case of the imminent danger of such a conflict as alone could justify the preparations that are now proposed in Singapore; you must prove it before us, you must prove it before the Foreign Office, before the Colonial Office, before the India Office, and before the other Departments concerned; and then the Cabinet as a whole must say that it is satisfied and that the case is made out." It is not enough merely to make a formal
952
statement, because you will have to justify your decision to the constituencies. I foresee a time when, if money is absorbed in the fashion which seems to me to suggest itself strongly, the Government will become very unpopular indeed, and when that time comes there will, I think, be justification for those of us who belong to the Opposiion to raise once more the objections which we now making, and to put them before great popular meetings. In that state of things I think the Government would do well to pause before they commit themselves on this matter and to betake themselves once more to conference with the Admirals with a view to extracting from them what this war is the peril of which justifies this great and momentous step.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I venture to say a word or two on this subject, especially after what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down. He referred to the Naval Staff as being a somewhat new creation, and thus, I think, suggested that their advice ought to be taken with considerable caution. Otherwise I do not quite see the force of his reference to their creation. I do not quite know what the noble and learned Viscount regards as a new creation, but I may remind your Lordships that the Naval Staff as it now exists at the Admiralty has been in existence for some years.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Since 1911.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: It was in existence when I went to the Admiralty, which, I am sorry to say, is now something like five or more years ago, and I know from my own experience at that time that this question of Singapore had not only been before the Admiralty for some time but was under the most anxious consideration of the Board of Admiralty and the Naval Staff of my day. I would add something more. Not only were the Admirals, of whom the noble and learned Viscount spoke a" if they were prepared to throw money away with both hands, the distinguished Admirals who formed our Naval Staff, unanimous as to the necessity for Singapore and as to its pressing importance, but their views were held in what I may call an almost passionate manner by those who represented

953
the two great Dominions of Australia and New Zealand. This particular question of the base at Singapore has not only been before the Naval Staff of the Admiralty for a very long time, and before successive Naval Staffs, but in addition it has to my knowledge been the subject of discussion between the representatives of both those great Dominions and the Government here at home, so that whatever may be said for or against, it cannot be urged, as it seemed to me that the noble and learned Viscount was inclined to urge, that the decision is one which has been hastily arrived at and one which is not supported by the very best opinion not only of sailors but of statesmen on this side and on the other side of the British Empire.
It is not for me to say what answer will be given to the question very properly put. If I may venture to say so, by the noble Viscount. I am an old hand, as is the noble and learned Viscount, at Parliamentary warfare and Party warfare, and I listened to his assurance that he is animated by no Party feeling with considerable interest, considering that the last time I had the honour of listening to the noble and learned Viscount he was speaking as the representative in this House of the Labour Party and was giving a very full explanation of their policy. I assume, therefore, that he speaks in the same capacity to-day. So far as the question of the expediency of this expenditure is concerned, this is a question which obviously can be dealt with only by a member of His Majesty's Government. It is clear that the pros and cons have to be weighed, and I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that it is not to-day or to-morrow, but it will probably be in two years' time or more, that the question of expenditure must arise in much larger dimensions, and that it will be a very important question, affecting the position, the popularity and the strength of the Government. I would express a very confident hope that all these points have been considered and that this momentous decision has not been arrived at without taking into account—I will not call them the possibilities but, the certainties to which the noble and learned Viscount referred.
I really rose more to deal with general questions than with the particular question
954
of Singapore. Like the noble and learned Viscount, and like the noble Marquess, who seemed to me to make a most complete and admirable defence of the Board of Admiralty, I agree with those noble Lords and others who are advocating increased expenditure on the Air Force, or at all events the preparation of a larger and, I hope, not less efficient Air Force than we have now. But I am one of those who deprecate more than I can describe to your Lordships this repetition of an attempt to draw comparisons between the provision of an Air Force and the provision of capital ships. I can understand the argument of those who, like some of the determined Peace Party, hold that there should be no-armaments or that the reduction in armaments should be carried to the utmost extreme. That is a position which I understand, though I have no sympathy with it whatever, and I believe that if it were adopted by this country it would be the first and a very long step towards our ultimate ruin. At all events that is a comprehensible policy. But I do not understand the policy of those who, in order to secure, that more money shall be spent upon the Air Force, proceed to throw doubts upon the present decision of the Government and especially upon "hat is known as the capital ship.
I must say that I was amused when I listened to the speech of the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion. He is not in his place now, but I hope he will forgive me for saying what I am going to say in his absence. There are scores of arguments to be found in favour of the policy of abandoning or largely reducing the number of capital ships. But what was the evidence that the noble Viscount sought in support of his argument? He made a series of quotations from a very distinguished Admiral, Sir Percy Scott. At a particular branch of naval work Sir Percy Scott is probably one of the ablest sailors who has ever worn His Majesty's uniform. But good gracious, my Lords, if Sir Percy Scott is to be quoted as an authority in favour of decreasing the importance of the capital ship because he is a sailor, because he is an Admiral, you can produce twenty or thirty of the most distinguished sailors that have ever served or are serving the King to-day who will give precisely the opposite opinion ! Therefore I do not think your Lordships are likely to be very

955
much affected by the fact that on a certain occasion Sir Percy Scott made a declaration, because noble Lords who advocate this policy must remember that Sir Percy Scott is not telling you that you are to abandon this and adopt some other expenditure; his view is that the day of the capital ship has gone.
Then the noble Viscount went on to say that the capital ship is practically of no use in war, because she has got to be accompanied by her complementary ships. If that be true, the capital ship was never of any use, because that statement is no more true to-day than it was before you had the aeroplane. The noble Marquess said, and I can support this from my own knowledge gained at the Admiralty, and from a great deal of information which has reached me since, that it is urged in many quarters that the capital ship ceases to be of real value because she can be destroyed from the air or from beneath the sea. Before the war came to an end, in addition to the fact mentioned by the noble Marquess, that not one capital ship had been destroyed by either of those methods, those who were responsible at the Admiralty and elsewhere for protective methods against attack from below the water and from the air had brought their work almost to completion, and were able to say that if those powers of attack developed the power of defence would equal them.
When I listened to suggestions for further expense, to be met by abandoning the capital ship, I asked myself what did they mean who advocated this policy? What is the capital ship? It is not only essential as the training ground of the Navy, for without the capital ship you can never make the personnel of the Navy what it is to-day, and what it must be if the Navy is to be effective; but it is something more. It is the great gun platform which in war commands the whole destiny and future of the fight. It is from the big ship that the big guns are fired which can sink ships of less power before they can get near enough to the big ships to use their guns. You may hold that the day of the big ship has gone, and say that we should think only in terms of aeroplanes and submarines, but the abandonment of the big ship policy has not been adopted by any other Power in the world. If those who believe in this policy believe that the Navy can be scrapped, and that
956
you can depend in future solely upon the Air Force, and upon possibly a certain number of submarines, that is a definite policy and they should so propose it, but do not, under cover of a desire to increase the Air Force, suggest a policy which would be absolutely fatal. I believe that the Government have made the reductions in the Navy which were necessary for reasons of economy. I regret that more than I can say, but they had to be made. I believe, to use a vulgar expression, that they have got down to the bone, and I believe that if they go further in reducing the Navy they will run a very grave risk. Whatever reduction they may have to make, so long as they retain a Navy, I hope and believe that they will make it their business to see that, in regard to the big ship, no step is taken which will render our Navy worthless as the means of keeping us mistress of the seas.
One other word. I know that this country has always rather prided itself upon taking a line different in many respects from that of other countries. It is a remarkable fact that in this air question what we do is to adopt a policy for the Air Force which is not adopted anywhere else. When I was First Lord it was my business to go, amongst other places, to Paris, and to have a long interview with the Minister of Marine and other Ministers who accompanied him at the interview. I shall never forget the emphatic manner in which the Minister of Marine, and his advisers, declared that nothing would induce them ever to abandon the right to have their own Air Force for the French Navy, which they could control. Every other country which has a Navy and an Air Force has done the same. I said a few nights ago that I am as strongly in favour of an increase of our Air Force as anybody in this House or outside it, but I believed that you would get not only efficiency, without which nothing is of any avail, but also considerable economy, if you were able to arrive at a settlement of this question which has been so long discussed between the different Departments and by the Committee of Imperial Defence, as to what shall be the allocation of powers and duties as between the Navy and the Army on the one side and the Air Force on the other. I believe that that would secure economy, and I am satisfied that it would

957
secure efficiency. I know that I am speaking the view of most experienced Admirals at present advising His Majesty, or on active service, when I say that this is the remedy that they would recommend alike for the provision of an increased Air Force and for greater economy in that provision
I realise that this is really not germane to this debate, and I only mention it because I believe that this is the direction which reform should take if we want at once to strengthen our Air Force as a whole, and to reduce its cost. Of course, as we know from figures which have been given, the French Air Force is much stronger than ours, but in France you have compulsory service, whereas here you have voluntary service.
There are other considerations upon which I will not now enter, but I want to say this one word further: I notice on this occasion, as I have noticed on previous occasions, that certain references have been made to the Naval Staff at the Admiralty, as if they were a young and inexperienced body, and as if they were something really different from what they really are. I venture to say that the naval advisers of the Crown throughout our history have constituted some of the ablest and most distinguished of those who serve the Crown. We have had many strong Boards of Admiralty, which have included the names of many great sailors, but I believe that we never have had a better combination for this purpose of staff work than we have had since the war at the Board of Admiralty. The staff of the Board of Admiralty is not precisely the same to-day as it was when I left the Admiralty, but how has it been recruited? It has been recruited, from the First Sea Lord downwards, from men who came straight from their ships, straight from the experiences gained in the war, men who played great and distinguished parts in the war, and who brought to the Admiralty the very latest information as to the way in which naval battles have been fought and are likely to be fought, and as to the needs to-day of the Navy for fighting our battles.
Therefore, whether you are prepared to accept their views or not, I hope that it will be recognised that the Government of the day have got in the Naval Staff—I hold no brief for them, for they are well able to defend themselves—a body of men
958
whom I know to-day in their work, and whom we all knew when they were serving afloat during the war, a body of men who can be relied upon to give you the best and shrewdest and most experienced advice. And I assure your Lordships that there is no more complete illusion than the one I so often hear that the sailor's experience and ability ends with his own profession, and that he has not thought of what the cost of his recommendations will be. I have presided over many meetings of the Board of Admiralty, and I can safely say that that is a ludicrous description of the sailor sitting in Whitehall. He knows perfectly well not only that his policy must be capable of defence on all grounds, and when challenged by other Departments, but that he is not justified in asking for money unless ho can at the same time justify the expenditure of every farthing of it on national grounds.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I rise to trouble your Lordships for a very few moments, and I may perhaps be excused as I have taken some interest in this air question. No one will dispute the high tribute which the noble Viscount who has just sat down has paid to the Board of Admiralty. It would, indeed, be eloquent of unwise selection if, at any given moment, the Government did not succeed in accumulating at the Admiralty and on the Board the best naval brains that could be discovered in the nation. That circumstance and that admission, freely made, do not, of course, in matters of strategy, render it any the less necessary to examine their conclusions. It has always been true, roughly speaking, that at a given moment the best naval experience is to be found collected at that Board, and yet there still exists—as might be usefully remembered by the noble Marquess, who, I thought, spoke in a tone of somewhat kindly admonishment to the noble Viscount who introduced this question—somewhere in the archives of the Admiralty or elsewhere, a Memorandum by a former Board of Admiralty proving, with the most scientific profusion of argument, illustrated even by the science of trigonometry, that it was absolutely impossible that steel ships, either now or at any other time, could float. This was a highly technical matter, well within the competence of naval

959
experts, and I only recall it now because it is very necessary that we should remember that Parliament and Governments ought not always to accept the more recommendations of experts where very important points of policy arise.
I am not going to take a side on the Singapore controversy, but I listened to the speech made by the noble and learned Viscount who sits behind me, and it left upon my mind an impression which I can very shortly state. It was that there is at least a case which requires the deepest consideration as to whether we are justified, in relation to this now naval base, in contemplating an expenditure so considerable (however it may be distributed) as £10,500,000. It may well be that there is a case. It may well be that that case has been established. And I, like the noble Viscount who has just spoken, am impressed by the view of the experts, and I understand it to be the view also of the Committee of Imperial Defence. But I do not rise to examine, to-night, either the arguments which relate to Singapore or the arguments which relate to the value and the durability in modern maritime warfare of the capital ship. I rise for a different purpose, and it is to point out that the form of debate is not really a very useful one which determines the merits of a case for expenditure in relation to one of the fighting Services by establishing a comparison with the rate of expenditure upon the other fighting Services. It is an unscientifie method of examination. It can only be justified if we were driven to this necessity: that we had to ear-mark X pounds and say that is all that we can spend whatever the emergency of future developments. We might, if our financial situation were so unfortunate, be driven to this necessity, but no sensible person would ever consent to take part in the discussion upon that basis except with the knowledge that he was driven by circumstances to a decision and a method which were alike unsound and indefensible.
And therefore I say nothing more about the Army, except this, that I am absolutely satisfied that no further economy of any substantial kind at all is practicable in relation to the Army without altogether diminishing its value to us. I speak with some knowledge on this point, because I sat for many weeks upon the Cabinet Committee which suggested sweeping reductions in the
960
Army, and it was my fortune upor many points, both in dealing with the Army and in dealing with the Navy and the Air Force, to differ from the Geddes recommendations, and, with the help of others, I was able to procure very substantial modifications of those proposals. But of this I am sure—that you will never be able to effect any very great reduction, any substantial reduction, in the expenditure upon the Army unless and until the whole world situation alters for the better. And I see no signs whatever of the world situation at this moment so altering for the better.
I have nothing to add to what has been said about Singapore. I think that the primary responsibility for that must obviously rest with the Navy. And I observe that even the noble and learned Viscount appeared to admit that it would be an advantage to have this base at Singapore. He said that if we could afford it no doubt it would be a great advantage, and that admission seemed to me to dispose of much of the argument of the noble and learned Viscount when he insisted that perhaps we were starting some new race and some new competitive standard for maritime expenditure in the Pacific. If it, indeed, be the fact that if the financial circumstances permit it would be an advantage to us to have this base, then obviously the answer to the question depends entirely upon what is the weight and the authority of the naval opinion given to the Government and the strategical answer to this proposition which has been made by the Committee of Imperial defence and the Cabinet which is ultimately responsible.
I have one further word to add, and that is upon the question of the Air Force. I have already deprecated the propriety of an estimate of our expenditure upon the Air in reference to other expenditure. I cannot help noticing that the noble Lord. Lord Gorell, has upon the Notice Paper a very interesting Motion which deals with this topic. My noble friend. I understand, if it is convenient to your Lordships, intends to follow me in this debate, and I shall not anticipate what he will say, but the two topics, while they contain much that does not relate to one another, evidently contain much which can and ought to be considered at the same time. The purpose of the noble Viscount who moved in the

961
present discussion was to say you must spend more upon the Air, and you must spend less upon the Navy and upon the Army. The purpose of my noble friend who is to speak, and possibly to move, next, is to say this in effect:—" While I agree that some increase in the Air Force is necessary, at the same time I lay stress upon the immense importance of economy, and I recommend that further representations Shall be made to foreign countries in order that by agreement we may procure some diminution in the actual and threatened expenditure upon the Air."
Let me make this observation upon the immediate Motion, because it does covet-by anticipation and, I think, without irrelevance, some of the points which are contained in the Motion of my noble friend who is to follow me. The real truth is that whatever our financial circumstances are we cannot afford to fall short in that duty which the Government declared the other day in relation to the Air. We only have to ask ourselves this' question: What is it, in terms of insurance, that this expenditure, great as undoubtedly it is, amounts to? What is it, in relation to the capital valu" of the interest which it safeguards and which it alone, acting together with the Fleet, can safeguard? The amount of the expenditure, if it is measured in that calculation, is almost pitifully small.
The noble and learned Viscount who sits behind me (Viscount Haldane) said that he did not know why, after the war, we had dissipated the Air Force. The memory of the noble and learned Viscount must be short indeed. Give me leave in the first place to point out that, while I have already admitted in this House that I would gladly have seen more strength preserved in the Air and struggled, so far as my province was concerned in such matters, to obtain a larger strength—while that is true, it is not true that we dissipated the whole of the Air Force. It is not true that we did not leave in existence the nucleus from which, under such intelligent co-operation as has taken place to-day a great force can be swiftly created and almost improvised. It is not true that we did not maintain the training centres and all those indispensable arrangements without which the cadre of a force is irretrievably lost.
962
May I remind your Lordships, in a moment, of another point of history which I presume that very few retain in their minds? Had the Geddes recommendations, which were introduced to and received by the country with so much enthusiasm, been accepted in relation to the Air without amendment by the Cabine Committee and subsequently by the Government, I say that many of the valuable training establishments which now exist and upon which we now depend would have disappeared and the recreation of our strength in the Air would have been rendered a task of infinitely greater difficulty. I have beheld with sympathy and with admiration the efforts which have been made and are being made by the present Air Ministry, in the very difficult situation which they have inherited, to make adequate provision for the safety of these islands. It seems to; me that by propaganda work, enterprise, and organisation they have made the most of very inadequate material. The time has come when they must be more fully equipped with everything which constitutes a strong Air Force. It is of no use deluding ourselves as to the realities of the actual world situation.
It is of no use forgetting that persuasiveness in all diplomacy marches hand in hand with reliance and adequacy in defence. To make this statement is entirely unprovocative. It is made without challenging protest, in the Par liament of every country in the world. It was made in the plainest possible terms in a debate which lately took place in the Parliament of one of our Allies. And, human nature being what it is, and the teaching's of history in this regard never varying, you cannot avoid this conclusion, that the whole difference between a great nation and a small nation, between an influential nation and an un-influential nation, does not lie in the geographical area over which its influence or its government extends; it lies and it lies only in its power to protect itself and to defend itself if unreasonable demands are made upon it. In no other terms since the dawn of the world has the strength of nations been measured, and in "no other terms by the ultimate analysis, until a very different Laague of Nations has achieved very different results, will national greatness be measured. No opulence no prosperity in commerce, can take the place of those simple gifts by

963
which, throughout the ages, the decline and the fall, the waxing and the waning of great Empires has been determined.
For this reason, the moment it was an established fact that another great nation on the Continent of Europe had no intention of ceasing in any way to maintain vast armaments in the air, without nourishing, as we were aware and we are glad to believe, any aggressive intentions against this country, it nevertheless was plain that vast armaments in the air were in fact to be maintained. We are concerned only in facts. We have nothing to do with intentions, nor can we any more accept good intentions, though we question not their sincerity at all. We can no more accept them, or afford to accept them, than we could afford to accept the expression of good intentions in any question of maritime supremacy in the days that lie behind us in order that the wishes of Great Britain in Europe or in the world might be considered. Not that we assert any domination in the councils of Europe or the world: but we claim that we should be entitled, when serious issues are in debate with which we are obviously deeply concerned, that our representations and our views shall receive that degree of attention to which our greatness and the part which we have played in the past in the world entitle us.
By whatever terms you measure the strength of nations, in those terms this country must continue to be strongly represented. That is why I listened with such extraordinary pleasure to the decision of the Government, as I heard it announced by the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, in this House a few days ago. The vital part of that message did not lie in the statement of any particular expenditure that was contemplated, still less did it lie in the enumeration of any particular number of pounds that were to be spent in a given year. The pregnant part of that message was contained in the sentence which laid it down in dignified and unprovoeative language, that it was the policy of this Government to ensure that the defences of this nation should be strong enough to protect the country against the Air strength of any nation which was within striking distance in the air. That
964
policy covers and embraces everything, Nor is it, I think, necessarily one that need be resented by my noble friend Lord Gorell. He has said, and said truly in his Motion that which I have no doubt he will say more elaborately in a moment—that no art or occasion should be neglected to convince every other country in the world of our readiness to enter into agreements by which this costly and competitive expenditure might be averted. It has been plainly said by the Government, it has been plainly raid, I think, by the Prime Minister in another place, that we will most readily and most gladly make any arrangement with any country in the world which is spending great sums upon armaments in the air with a view of effecting mutual reductions. But, of course, that mutuality of reduction must in its turn depend upon the maintenance of the principle already laid down by the Government.
If my noble friend thinks that by making some still further communication to France or to any other country at this moment we could procure such a mutual process of reduction—well, he is entitled to his view. I do not happen to share it; but I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Marquess, when he replies to this debate, will state in the most formal manner that we will give encouragement to any such proposal if we receive on our part the slightest encouragement for supposing that it may help if we make suggestions. I have no doubt that this Government, or any other Government in this country, will immediately indicate its willingness, and indeed its strong desire, to enter into such discussions. This matter is one which, unless adjusted in some such manner, is likely to involve us in grave anxieties for many years, and in an expenditure which, in relation to our financial circumstances, must be pronounced not inconsiderable, if, indeed, we are committed to it. Let us, without saying over much about it, none the less make up our minds that when the test is put upon us in these difficult days to maintain a vital arm upon which the security of the country depends, we shall not show less resolution or less determination than was shown by those who went before us when they were concerned in their day and generation first with naval strength, and secondly with military strength.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL had the fallowing Notice on the Paper:—
To call attention to the recent decision of His Majesty's Government to increase the Royal Air Force and to move to resolve. That, whilst the House admits the necessity for an increase in the air defences of this country, it views with alarm the further burden of expenditure upon armaments, and calls upon His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to co-operate with other Governments with a view to its limitation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble and learned Earl has just said, it may be convenient, as the subject of the Motion which I have placed upon the Paper, though not strictly the same, is nevertheless very cognate to the Motion of which Notice was given by my noble friend, if I make my remarks upon my Motion now and put the Motion formally afterwards. It will enable the noble Marquess to reply to both together. I would like, first of all to refer to the supplementary answer given by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, on the day when he first made the announcement of the Government's decision. The noble and learned Viscount called attention to the fact that the noble Marquess had mentioned the Army, the Navy and the. Air Force, and asked whether we were to deduce from the statement of the Government that there were to be three. Forces. The reply of the noble Marquess was that this was a matter which was still under examination.
I think that before we express our satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the action of the Government we are entitled to know a little more clearly what they mean. Are they going to take away with one hand what they are giving with the other? The question of the integrity of the Air Force was settled, as far as anything can be settled, last year. Of course, one understands that no Government can bind its successors, but the whole matter after it had been exhaustively examined for two or three years was made the subject of a formal pronouncement on the part of Mr. Lloyd. George's Government by Mr. Austen Chamberlain in the House of Commons. I would like to ask why the matter is still under examination. What new factors have come in, and what
966
is known now with relation to the air and the sea which was not known last year?
it is perfectly true that the basis of inquiry has shifted. Originally it was a plain demand for the splitting up again of the Air Fore. Now it takes the form of the demand of the Navy for the Naval Air Wing, but the principle is the same had occasion, when speaking last year on this subject, to point, out that the Navy have complete operational control of all Air units serving with them, and though it sounds extremely specious that the Navy should have their own Air Wing I want, if the Government are prepared to answer the questions I am directing at them on this subject, to point out that there is no stopping place. We have heard a great deal of naval air and military air, and other absurdities of that kind in this discussion. There is one air just the same as there is one sea, and it is perfectly impossible to draw a line of demarcation as to which part of the air shall be given to the Navy and the rest of (he air to the Air Force. Everybody who has had any experience of the Air Force knows that perfectly well, and I venture to say also that all the naval authorities know it quite well; in fact, one of their protagonists in your Lordships' House, Lord Vernon last year stated that the basis of their action was to endeavour to lift the Navy into the air. There can be no dividing line.
For example, if there is to be a Naval Wing who is to have responsibility for the coast defences of this country? At present that rests with the Royal Air Force. Who is to have responsibility for the air defences of Malta, and who again is to have responsibility for the air defences of the dock that you are now going to create at Singapore? It is impossible to come to any conclusion as to what the decision of the Government means if, in fact, under the cover of strengthening the Air Force they are really going to split it up into three—that is to say, to substitute for one efficient force three that must be weak and inefficient. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, stated that so far as his experience, which is very great on this subject, went, duality would be less expensive than the present system. The whole experience of the war goes quite definitely to prove the reverse. I may remind your Lordships

967
that the most striking indictment that was ever drawn up against that dual system was drawn up by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, and one may hope that at any rate he will not be a party to going back in any shape or form to a system which he himself has so radically condemned.
That is very germane to consideration of the Government's decision but it is not the main theme, to which I will now pass without delay. I do not wish to say anything as to the general scheme of the increase. The announcement is rather vague, and so far as I can gather—no doubt the noble Marquess will tell us more the general scheme is one that is based upon that which was worked out under the predecessors of the present Government—that is to say, the plan for the territorial expansion and to rest, it as far as possible upon a healthy civilian aircraft industry. With that I am necessarily totally in agreement, and I have no words of criticism to offer upon it. I think it unnecessary at this stage to endeavour to argue at all the necessity for the increase. The figures which have been given in this debate, and were given by the noble Duke in March last to your Lordships' House, speak entirely for themselves.
I would only draw attention to the fact that within the last few days there have been speeches in apparently responsible quarters denying that there is any necessity whatever. I even see that the decision was " the outcome of a capitalist stunt. I do think that there is great danger of speakers in more or less responsible positions treating audiences as if they were quite as ignorant as the speakers themselves, because that is not a statement of opinion, it is a definite and deliberate misrepresentation of facts which could be very easily proved. I, therefore, do not propose to give the figures of the strengths of different Air Forces, but I would like to give some figures with relation to the financial side. The expenditure of our great neighbour and Ally, in 1920, was 333,000,000 francs on Air strength, and in 1923, apart from any subsequent additions, it was 617,000.000 francs. The inference I draw from that is that the French have come to an earlier appreciation of Air power than ourselves, and I think they are absolutely
968
right. They are paying twice as much attention to the power of the Air now as they were three years ago.
Our figures arc on a correspondingly falling scale. For 1919 and 1920 they were £22,900,000, and in 1923, £12,000,000, plus the addition necessitated by the recent increase. That is to say, while the French have paid twice as much attention to Air power, we, so far as financial figures arc concerned, have paid only half the attention. The noble and learned Earl described as dignified and unprovocative the words of the Government's announcement. They laid down clearly a principle of policy. I do not know whether the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will be able to explain a little more what they mean. I should like to ask whether it is the decision of the Government that the increase is sufficient to meet that principle or whether we are to accept the decision as in the nature of a first instalment of increase.
It need hardly be said, though it is perhaps just as well to say it, that in nothing we say are we actuated in any sense by a spirit of rivalry with our great neighbour and Ally. I have taken the trouble to notice, as far as I can, the comment of our neighbours on the decision announced by His Majesty's Government. I suppose that in no country is any comment upon any action of a neighbour unified, but I have been struck on the whole with the sense which our comradeship together in the war enabled them to know that in the British people there is a very definite absence of the spirit of aggression. Perhaps the best example of French comment upon the Government's decision are the words spoken by M. Flandin at the end of the International Air Congress on June 30. M. Flandin is not merely one the best known authorities on the Air, he is also a very good friend to this country. This is what he said:—
"Our most ardent wish is that you may be spared the criticisms and expressions of frowning wonder to which we" were subjected when taking exactly the same step.''
In other words, he looked forward to an alliance in Air power such as distinguished us on land in the war. His concluding words are words which we should do well to ponder. What is " the same step "? We, in this country, are increasing our Air Fore. Our French neighbours have also shown great and increasing appreciation

969
of Air power. I understand that the United States of America is also paying more attention to this question.
In what direction are those steps tending? With that question in my mind I put down on the Order Paper a Resolution which, to some extent, is a double Resolution because it seems to me that, the problems involved are double. I most heartily agree with the noble and learned Earl when he said that the first duty of the Government was "insurance,'' another word, and perhaps a better word, than "defence." It is quite obvious that defence is the first duty, under cover of which all other duties may be performed. But there is a second duty, and I cannot find a single word which expresses it better than " economy." Bat it is a much wider duty than that. One realises that in all these matters it is essential that the state of the world should be taken into account, and that it is idle to pass Resolutions which, when they were passed at a conference the other day, were described as " meaningless heroics." It is well that we and other nations should pause and consider the direction in which the world is once more tending.
I take our figures on armaments in 1913–14, just before the war. They were £77, 000,000. In 1919–20 they were £585,400,000; figures grossly swollen by the cost of demobilisation and war liabilities. For this year the figure is £122,000,000. plus such additions as may be necessitated by the recent decision of the Government with regard to an increase in our Air power. That is at least £45,000,000 more than we were expending on armaments before the war, leaving out of consideration all expenditure in the next ten years on the dock at Singapore. One feels a certain spirit of dismay creeping over one when one hears, first, from the noble and learned Earl that he sees no hope of reduction anywhere, and from the noble Marquess who spoke on behalf of the Admiralty—let me say that I thought his speech provided as good an argument based on the inability of the Admiralty to understand Air power as I have ever heard—that in no consideration can Air power be regarded as an alternative to sea power. Some of es had hoped that in that direction there might be some chance of reducing expenditure.
The main points I wish to make are that our expenditure on armaments is now greater than before the war; that the war has definitely exploded the old aphorism Si vis pucem, para bellum. And the power of the air now and in the future is as yet hardly realised. In the last war, whenever there was a raid—I am speaking not only of this country but of other countries as well—there was a practical stoppage of industrial life for twelve hours. It took that time before the workers could be got back to their work, before machines could he re-started, and before trains could run again. That is the experience of the power of the air at a time when it was still in its infancy, and it is perfectly certain that if, and when, there should ever be another great war the power of the air will not be exercised spasmodically but continuously. And with the lessons of the war before us one knows only too well the temptation, if any country has a great power whether on land, on sea, or in the air, to see how well it will work and let loose that, power somewhere upon some one.
Therefore, I again ask the question which the noble and learned Viscount asked from a financial point of view, but I ask it in a very much wider sense: Quo Vadis? In which direction is the world going now on the whole question of armaments? I notice that the noble and learned Earl, whose recent interest in the air since freed from the burden of office we welcome very much, speaking at Derby the other day, after the announcement of the Government decision, said he was not quite clear whether the decision meant that the Government were adhering to a one-Power standard. It is obvious that in all human matters there must be some relation between what one does and what one's neighbour dues. But have we really come to this, that after the war which was to teach us so much we are once again to see re-emerging the old formulæ of rivalry and competition? We all know the world's experience of what it means to talk about one-Power and two-Power standards, and we are once again confronted with the expenditure of many millions upon armaments. Is it to be said of us, in the old phrase attributable to the Bourbons, that we are forgetting nothing, nothing of ail that scientific progress in gas and other means of

971
destruction, and remembering nothing, nothing of all the sacrifices and burdens?
It is for that reason that I have placed this Resolution upon the Paper, and I have worded it with some care because I wish definitely to avoid that very easy task, especially easy in opposition, of calling upon the Government to achieve the impossible. A resolution was passed at the Labour Party Conference calling upon the Government to summon an international air conference to abolish by agreement all armaments, air and otherwise. It is very easy to call a conference. Anybody can do it, just as they can call spirits from the vasty deep, but it is perfectly obvious that to invite the Government now to call an international conference with such an object is totally impracticable and does not take into consideration the state of Europe. I doubt very much also whether those who spoke upon that resolution had ever really studied their subject.
There was no sign that any speaker had made himself aware of the report of the Committee on Aircraft of the Washington Conference. That Committee, as many of your Lordships will know, came to an unanimous finding. It was, in a sense, only a side issue of the main Conference, but a good many nations, including ourselves, were represented on that Committee. The finding was that:
"The Committee is of the opinion that it is not at present practicable to impose any effective limitation upon the numbers or characteristics of aircraft, either commercial or military."
I do not wish to be in the position of one who invites the Government to do something, of the difficulties of which he is clearly in ignorance. That Committee, whose Report is open to all to read, drew attention to the inseparable connection between commercial aeronautics and the development of a nation's Air power, and decided that it was impossible to limit Air power effectively without limiting civil aviation, which would be undesirable in the interests of intercommunication and peace. That opinion was adopted by the Conference. A note, however, was attached by the Italian representative to which I would draw the attention of the noble Marquess. He states that he did not share the objection of his colleagues in that he felt that it was possible to place a limit upon the number of pilots.
I would make this further suggestion, because I think in a matter of this difficulty it is one's duty to be as constructive as possible. It is very easy to convert a commercial aeroplane into a bombing machine, though the battle machine bears the same relation to the commercial machine as the battleship to the merchant ship. It is possible, however, to place a limit upon the training. It is obvious that unless one limits civil aviation altogether there will be large numbers of men, increasingly large as this means of communication increases, who will be flying regularly over certain well-known routes, safely guarded and with all those appliances of security and all those landmarks which are now regulated by international agreement. But it is a very different matter to fly by night over uncharted routes in conditions of great danger, and still more to perform all those marvellous feats of airmanship to which the Royal Air Force have accustomed us. It is not a quick process, nor can it be secret, to train war pilots. I venture to suggest therefore that this is one avenue which demands further exploration on the part of any Government that genuinely desires to see a limitation of Air armament. One cannot say that, difficult as the matter is, it has yet been by any means fully explored.
I have included the words " immediate steps " in the Resolution which I shall have to move later because the Government in announcing their decision expressed their intention, if and when the opportunity occurred, of co-operating with other nations with a view to limiting armaments. We want something more than that. We want a definite statement from them that they will make it their unceasing aim. I do not desire to tie the hands of the Government by that form of words. They have channels of communication denied to others by which they can tell when and how means may best be taken. But unless some steps are taken, with this great and increasing menace from the air coming over the world more and more—and it is not a case of what may be but of what must be if the Air Navies of the world are allowed to develop—we shall see a deadlier race of armaments than we have ever seen hitherto, and one cannot believe that, with this development threatening civilisation—and

973
it will do no less—the Government can remain supine. We call upon the Govern merit, therefore, unequivocally to make plain their intention to spare no effort in this direction, and in that spirit and in that spirit alone I placed my Resolution upon the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will forgive me if at this hour of the, afternoon I do net attempt to go into some of the details which have been raised by successive speakers. I recognise to the full the, difficulties to which my noble friend, the noble Viscount, Lord Long, referred as to arranging the relations between the Army and the Navy on this subject, and the noble Lord who has just sat down also referred to that point. It would be in the highest degree inconvenient if I were to pronounce any opinion upon it, for it is still under discussion. The only thing I will say is that I rather deprecate the view taken by the noble Lord that it is a very simple matter. He seemed to think that everybody was agreed. If he had had the opportunities which I have had during the last few weeks he would have found that there is no subject in connection with this great question upon which people so profoundly differ. Nevertheless, the Government must, of course, come to a decision upon it, and I confess frankly to the House that I am disappointed that. I have not been able to announce sooner what that decision is. The difficulties have been very great, and I must ask for a little more indulgence in that respect.
Let me come to the larger points which have been raised. The noble Lord who has just sat down is, like all of us—this was apparent from his speech—torn between the conflicting demands of national defence and national economy. The whole of the first part of his speech was directed towards increases for the purpose of national defence, and of the latter part of his speech to deprecating undue expenditure in the interests of national economy. We must face it. The two things are not altogether compatible. Some compromise must be drawn somewhere. The line must be fixed, and I do not think we gain anything by ignoring the difficulties which lie in our way. This much may be said, but it is little more than has already been announced in this House and in another place, in the
974
declaration of the Government upon Air policy, that our objective must be to render this country strong enough to hold her own against any Power within striking distance of tin's country, and we are taking the steps open to us to bring about that result, but of course we bear in mind the heavy expenditure that that involves. That difficulty besets us just as it besets the noble Lord, and I must say that I thought it very unkind of the noble Viscount, who opened the, proceedings, to say that I had lightly swept away all considerations of economy on the ground that we had plenty of money. I do not recognise it, that account of my speech the least resemblance to anything that I have ever said. On the contrary, I began on the last opportunity that I had of answering the noble Viscount by congratulating him upon his economical tendencies, and by adopting them as those of the Government and of myself
It is, of course, fundamental that we have to consider economy. How easy policy would be if you had not to consider economy. Why, it would be the simplest thing in the world. Anybody could run the Empire if he did not have to think of money. But you must think of it, and especially must you think of it now. Every pound that we spend unnecessarily does an injury to the country, and a very deep injury, and you may take it from me that in the proposals which we, have made for the expansion of Air power we have not exaggerated one iota beyond the necessities of the case. If anything, we have erred by not going far enough—certainly not by going too far. That is the case. I do not want your Lordships to give too much weight to the figures, which I think were exaggerated, which the noble Lord who has just sat down gave, as to the comparative expenditure before the war and now. I may have misunderstood him. I do not quarrel with the actual figures that he gave, but it must be remembered that in comparing the expenditure of the joint Services now, with what it was before the war, you have to take into consideration the fact, for one thing, that we are spending already £10,000,000 more on the Air Service than we were before the war—1 mean without the expansion which the Government are now proposing. You also have to take into account the difference in the value of money, reflected in the difference of pay and the difference in pensions. If you make all those deductions

975
you will find that the resulting difference, between what was spent before the war and what we are spending now, is comparatively small. I only say that because I do not want it to go out to the country that these gigantic differences exist. In one way they do, but if you analyse the figures the real difference is very much smaller than would appear.
I turn now to say one word about the attack which the noble Viscount who opened the debate, followed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, made upon what I may call the Singapore policy. I do not think it is necessary for me, after what he perhaps will allow mo to call the very admirable speech which the noble Marquess who represents the Admiralty made this evening, to enter into a defence of the use and necessity of capital ships. The noble Viscount did not quite say that he did not want capital ships at all, although he hinted at it but the noble and learned Viscount, who knows the subject very intimately, was clearly of opinion that sea power was essential, and he did not question that sea power, according to the best technical advice open to the Government, is absolutely tied up with the maintenance of capital ships. Well, if it is the case that you must maintain sea power, and that you must maintain the capital ships—if, in a word, you must maintain a fleet and a Navy as heretofore, you must make it useable. What is the good of continuing a fleet which you cannot use? What grosser extravagance can there be than to have this enormous expenditure upon the personnel and materiel of the Navy, and yet be unable to use them?
The noble and learned Viscount thought he had put the Government in a dilemma when he asked: "Against whom are you gong to use the Fleet in the Far East?" A very easy question to put, but a very difficult one to answer discreetly. But I will answer him by asking him another question. Against whom does he propose to use the Fleet in home waters? He himself explained to your Lordships that the German sea power had disappeared. Against whom would he maintain the Fleet? He did not propose to scrap the Fleet, but upon his argument you ought to get rid of the Fleet altogether. It is very expensive. It stops education and sanitary reform, which the
976
noble and learned Viscount mentioned to us as being vitally important, and I say this, that if you are looking at the question from the point of view of statesmen who regard not the present only but the future, and who wish to ensure not only against certain danger but possible accident, the Fleet is just as important in the Far East as in home waters, and if he cannot find an answer to my question, neither am I bound to give publicly an answer to his.
No, my Lords, the Fleet is essential. The noble and learned Viscount says we have a democracy. That is true, but we have an Empire, too, and we have to treat our democracy with candour and fairness, and to tell them that they have to make provision for the defence of our Empire. We are going to meet, a few-months hence, the Prime Ministers of all the great Dominions of the Crown, and amongst others the Prime Ministers of Australia and of New Zealand. What do you suppose they would say if we said to them: " We propose to render the Fleet impotent in all the waters which wash your shores "? It is quite evident that they would say that if Great Britain is unable to provide for the defence of these great Dominions, and for all the trade which passes to and fro, she is unfit to have Dominions at all. It is part of our fundamental obligation to provide defence for all our Dominions. I think my noble friend Lord Linlithgow said that a very valuable contribution was going to be made by the Dominion of New Zealand. That is an example which I hope may be followed, and I need not tell your Lordships that any contribution from the great Dominions will be received by us with gratitude, not merely because of its pecuniary value, but because of the great spirit of comradeship, and interdependence and responsibility which we are proud to acknowdedge. That is our answer about Singapore.
Then I come to the second part of the noble Lord's speech, the part in which he urged us to do everything we could for economy. We arc doing so. And I speak now, not as the representative merely of this Government, but as the representative of the Government of this country irrespective of Party, and irrespective of the particular Ministers who happen to be in office. We are doing our utmost. Look at the Washington

977
Treaty. That was a splendid example of a determination to limit naval armaments. I am delighted, as your Lordships arc delighted, to see that the French Government are taking the steps which arc necessary to ratify that Treaty. I think that is a matter of most profound satisfaction on every ground. When we think of other polities, to which I shall not refer now, but which will be referred to to-morrow, and the differences of opinion which have arisen between us, it is a great satisfaction to the Government and to your Lordships to find that, in this great department of public policy, we hold, as we have held all along, the cordial support of the French Government. That is a great testimony to the desire of Great Britain in the direction of the limitation of armaments.
But it is not, of course, confined to the Navy. We have reduced the Army, reduced it to the last point that is safe. I think the noble and learned Viscount-said so. At any rate, it is quite true. My noble friend the Secretary of State for War staled in his place the other night that we had gone to the extreme limit, and he was speaking, as I am sure your Lordships realised, for the whole Government when he said so, and that we could go no further in the reduction of the fighting forces of the Army. What is true of the Navy and what is true of the Army we would like to be true of the Air Service, and that was why we placed in the formal declaration which my noble friend and the Prime Minister made to Parliament the other day, that assurance that we were ready and anxious, following on the lines of the Washington Treaty and applying it to the Air Service, to co-operate to the utmost of our power with foreign Governments in limiting the Air armaments of the world. We went further, and we said that this declaration of ours applied, and was intended to apply, to the programme of expansion which at that moment we were laying before Parliament and the country. I do not think a more formal assertion of our policy is possible.
But the noble Lord is not satisfied. He wants us, as he calls it, to take steps. To take steps What steps does he mean—write a despatch? These things are not very effective, but they may be very inopportune. The reason why the Government could not accept the Motion, as the noble Lord has drafted it, is that
978
he asks us to take immediate steps to produce this co-operation. Whenever the opportunity serves, when the state of Europe is a little less strained than it is at this moment, then perhaps we may have an opportunity of carrying out what is the announced and convinced policy of the Government. But it would be very unwise if your Lordships placed upon record a Resolution that immediate steps should be taken to produce this co-operation, when the probability is that not only would the immediate steps be wholly unfruitful, but that they would be almost certainly misunderstood. No, that we cannot do.
If the noble Lord asks me what the policy of the Government is I will tell him. Our policy is to carry out in the Air Service, as we have carried out in the Navy and in the Army, the principles of the Washington Treaty. That is what we desire to do; that is what we hope for. Who but can agree with the noble Lord when he says that this senseless competition in armaments is a profound evil? Of course we say so, of course we think so. Doubly do we think so, responsible for the finances of this country an a time of this strain. But until that opportunity comes we must go on protecting the country, protecting those who trust us from the evils which would befall any country which is unarmed. These economics, necessary though they are, are not to be sought in impotence. We must have an adequate Air Force until we can arrange some terms upon which there can be a mutual limitation of air armaments, and we must have adequate provision for our Fleet in order that we may protect the humblest subject of the King in every part of the world. That is our duty. Within those limits we must study economy, and we ask your Lordships to trust us, we ask the country to trust us. We do not think we have done anything to forfeit that trust. Everything we have done has been bona fide in the spirit of what I have said. And I would ask your Lordships not to give the impression that there is any division of opinion, either in the House or in the country, as to these essentials, and to allow the Government to pursue their policy in peace.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, I do not propose in any way to criticise the policy of the Government with regard to Air. And I welcome the

979
emphasis which the noble Marquess who has just sat down has laid upon the desire of the Government to take the very first opportunity, at any time when it presents itself, of conferring with other Governments, in any way in which other Governments may be disposed to concur or can be persuaded to concur, for a mutual reduction of expenditure on armaments. But at the moment I agree that the Government have no choice but to put forward the programme for increased expenditure upon the Air Force which they have put forward.
We are really in a peculiarly sensitive position with regard to attacks from the air. Supposing the proceedings of the night before last had been an air raid instead of what they were and the Government of the day had been as defenceless against them as they were against the behaviour of the elements, I do not ask what the position of the Government would have been. We should have been within measurable distance of a revolution in this country. The air danger is one which may come upon us very suddenly. It is, therefore, one which is especially likely to give rise to national panic. I think in this country we are not more liable, but less liable, to national panic than other countries, and that if it arises it will, perhaps, take less violent forms than it has sometimes done in other countries. But it would be a very undesirable thing, and we arc more liable to a state of panic arising suddenly if we are defenceless with regard to the Air than we are if we have fallen behind in regard to any other arm. So, at least, it seems to me looking to the future and to the effect which danger from the air is likely to have on national opinion.
As that may arise very suddenly and as we are peculiarly sensitive to it, for the reason that not merely London but a great many other parts of this country are more liable to attack and are more easily attacked by the air from the Continent than the vital parts of Continental countries are easy of attack from our shores, it is a danger as to which other nations ought to recognise that we even more than a Continental country are bound to feel exceedingly sensitive. I hope, therefore, that notice will be taken abroad of the fact that this expenditure which we are now incurring is one which we really regard as an essentially defensive
980
expenditure. It is not intended as a preparation for any war which is in contemplation. Considering how vulnerable we are from the point of view of the air it is intended as a defence which is absolutely necessary to make the public mind secure. So far as that is concerned. I support it and I hope your Lordships will not think that in what I am going to say I wish in any way to qualify, or to make reservations with regard to, that support of this particular expenditure.
But do let us bear in mind that essential as this expenditure is on Air, it is the beginning of a new competition in armaments. The standard is that of the strongest Air Power within striking distance. That, of course, is France. It is, therefore, a competition in armaments between two countries who have lately been in absolute and devoted alliance in war and, though they have differences of policy at the present moment, are still linked together by an understanding and an entente and all the close sentiment which arises from the fact of having fought on the same side in defence of their joint liberties. Yet between those two the competition is beginning. It is only a beginning; but I am sure of this, that it ought to be noted as a most unfavourable sign for the future. If competition in armaments begins and proceeds without being checked, it will, undoubtedly, lead again to another war worse than the last war. I think the lesson of the last war really is that competition in armaments makes war inevitable, that it puts some countries in such a position as to precipitate war.
I agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, that a country which becomes opulent and prosperous in commerce and does not take measures for its defence will perish. But that is not the only way of perishing, and if competition in armaments goes on and gets ahead again amongst European countries, it will lead to another war in which they will all go down together. It is not yet certain that Europe or we ourselves are going to recover from the last war. It is, I think, practically certain that if there is another European war, neither Europe will recover from it nor European civilisation. We shall perish and we shall all go down together. If we must perish, I agree that I would prefer that we should perish all in common than that we should perish alone. But I would

981
like ourselves and other nations to have a better alternative, and the only better alternative is that they should come to an agreement, in time that this competition in armaments between them is not to begin and increase again. That is really the only way.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, says what is true—I think ho said it twice in his speech to-night—when he states that at the present moment the League of Nations is not a guarantee on which even the members of it can build securely against an outbreak of future war. I do not object to that being stated so long as it is true. But I sometimes wish that the noble and learned Earl would not state it with such an appearance of equanimity. I regret that it should be true. I believe it, is only by making that cease to be true, by making the League of Nations a greater reality than it is, and, through the League of Nations, working for a firm agreement which shall prevent competition in armaments growing up, that such security can be brought about. Anyhow, there it is. Therefore, I would like to make those two points clear. First of all, that I will support without reserve this present expenditure that we are asked for with regard to the Air. Secondly, that. I regard the fact that it is a beginning in competition in armaments as a reason—I think we are alive to it here—why other countries should become more alive than they are to the necessity of preventing this becoming the starting point of an increasing and perhaps, a rapidly increasing expenditure on armaments.
I must say a word or two, though it is late in the afternoon, on this question of the Singapore dock. I thought that the noble Marquess who spoke on behalf of the Admiralty quite earned the compliment which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, paid him, for having marshalled his facts very clearly and put in a very convincing and attractive way the fact that a good naval base at Singapore would be an advantage. But that is not really the point of the noble Viscount's Motion. I do not think he argued that we should not be better off with a naval base at Singapore than without one. The whole question is whether it is expedient and essential expenditure. I would like to take one illustration from those which the noble
982
Marquess, speaking on behalf of the Admiralty, drew from the experience of the last war as showing the advantage of a naval base at Singapore, equipped with docks and so forth. He pointed to the damage which the " Emden " and the German squadron in the Pacific had done, and his argument, as I understood it, was that if only we had had this naval base at Singapore we should have settled those particular items of the enemy's Elect more quickly than we did. That, no doubt, is true. Yet it would have been a great mistake had we attempted before this last war to spend money on that dock at Singapore. After all, we did round up those items of the German Fleet eventually. They caused some loss, bur not a loss which was vital to us.
But before the war we had many difficulties about naval expenditure. Everybody's memory will bear me out—indeed, it was notorious—that there was great controversy at certain times as to whether the Government of the day was spending enough on the Navy. Looking at public opinion as it was before the war, looking at public opinion as it was expressed in the House of Commons and by the Government of the day, which after all is but a reflection of the House of Commons just as the House of Commons is a reflection of public opinion outside, I have no hesitation in saying, with full knowledge of all the difficulties which have to be encountered and discussed in the expenditure on the Navy, that we did ask Parliament before the war for the utmost expenditure which any conceivable Government at that time or the House of Pommons was prepared to vote. We got the most money that the House of Commons, representing public opinion was prepared to vote, or a united Government was prepared to propose. When the war came we had a Fleet stronger, better equipped, more ready than we had ever had in our history before. Had that money which the country voted for the Navy been spent on a dock at Singapore to the neglect of anything which was essential on which we did spend money, we might it is true have disposed of those items of the German Fleet more quickly, but we might have lost the war. Therefore, when you are limited in your expenditure, it is really necessary that you should consider how that money can be best spent on

983
what is essential, and you should be very careful not to spend any of it on anything which is not essential. Before the war, undoubtedly, I think, it was right that the money which we had to dispose of should be spent on the capacity to concentrate a very strong Fleet, as we did concentrate one when the war broke out, and that we should not take any money from that purpose and spend it on outside purposes.
Let me come to the present day. How have the conditions altered which make it desirable that we should now spend money on a dock at Singapore? There are two conceivable things. One only has to be mentioned to be dismissed, and that is that we have more money to spend now than we had before the war. I recognise that the noble Marquess in his speech emphasised the fact that we really have got to economise every pound. So far as money is concerned we have less money to spend for anything which is not essential or not expedient than we had before the war. Therefore we car: put that aside. Then, for what contingency are we providing? I should hold, if the money is being spent on the dock at Singapore simply for the contingency of another war against a European Power, with their main fleet in European waters, that it was not essential expenditure, and I think the noble Marquess who spoke for the Admiralty will probably not object to my saying that he did not wish us to infer that the trouble we had had with the " Emden " and the German Fleet was the real motive cause for asking the country to spend this large Sum on a dock at Singapore.
The real cause is not preparing for war with another European Power, but preparing for a contingency which we had not in mind before the last great war. The noble Marquess deprecated being pressed upon the point as to what the contingency was. He said that he could not answer it in public without being-indiscreet. There are many advantages in not being in a Government but in Opposition, and one is that one can be indiscreet with less damage to the public interest than if one is in office. I should like to go quite frankly into this question of what the contingency is for which this dock at Singapore is wanted. The whole case for it this afternoon was that it is
984
wanted to make our Fleet more effective in the Pacific than it is. Then it is intended for the contingency of war against some Power.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And the Indian Ocean.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: Yes, but, so much stress was laid upon Australia and New Zealand that I am sure the Pacific is what is really in mind. In other words, if the Indian Ocean is being threatened it is going to be threatened by a Naval Power from the Pacific. That is the threat you are guarding against both in regard to the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. There are two great Pacific Naval Powers, one the United States and the other Japan. Nobody for a moment dreams, not even in the United States, I imagine, that this expenditure at Singapore is preparation against the United States, and I think that ought to be quite frankly admitted. It will really make much less trouble with Japan if we admit frankly that the contingency really in our mind with regard to this expenditure at Singapore is the possibility of war in the future—the possibility of war, however remote, in the future—with Japan. Let me look into that question. I was not a member of the Government which made the Japanese Alliance.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: I was a member of a Government which renewed it at least once, and I would like to say this. I am sure the feeling in both countries. Japan and here, must be that that Alliance was of very great advantage to Japan in its earlier years, and of great advantage to this country in its later years, so that it was of great mutual advantage to both countries. Now that the Alliance is at an end—or rather I ought to say now that its place has been taken by the Washington Agreements—I still hope the memory of it will remain in both countries, and make it exceedingly unlikely that there will he a conflict between them. I hope it will also be borne in mind that both countries are members of the League of Nations, and that they cannot go to war with each other without violating their word in signing the Covenant of the League.
But I do not say those things in order to dispose of this as a contingency which

985
ought never to be taken into account. What I would ask is this. Even supposing the contingency is most remote, is this expenditure on a dock at Singapore really essential? As regards the protection of Australia and New Zealand, are they perfectly persuaded that the dock at Singapore is a better way of protecting them than a naval base in their own countries? Then, if the contingency has to be contemplated, I think we ought further to bear in mind that should that very unlikely contingency come to pass, and should there be something which brings the British Empire and Japan into conflict, it is going to be a thing so momentous—something threatening Australia and New Zealand—that it is, as far as anything human can be certain, I think absolutely certain that it will be a race conflict in which the United States as well as the British Empire will be involved on the same side. I am not at all clear that 10 spend money on this dock at Singapore is the best way of preparing for the contingency. I am not, at all clear that it is not going to make matters worse.
Is it really quite in accord with the spirit of the Washington Agreements? The noble Marquess said that the naval experts at Washington, when the Agreements were being made, had before them the map, and, with their eyes open, drew the boundary, leaving Singapore outside the area which was covered by the stipulations of the Agreements. That, no doubt, is true. I assume they did look at a map, and they did realise where the boundary was being drawn. If what the noble Marquess told us this afternoon had this behind it, that during the Washington discussions our naval experts said to the American and Japanese naval exports: "We must have this line drawn so as to include Singapore because we intend to engage in large expenditure on a naval dock at Singapore," then, of course, the sooner that is made known the better, because there is undoubtedly an impression of surprise abroad—I fear even in the United States, though they know perfectly well that the expenditure is more likely to be helpful to them than otherwise—that so soon after the Washington Agreements we are engaged in a large naval expenditure so close to the limits which were laid down.
It is not fair at this late hour to press the Government for answers to such questions. If I had wanted answers I should
986
have spoken earlier, and am not going to press for replies to-night. But I should like to know whether the Washington Agreements forbid other nations who are Parties to it from responding with similar expenditure in the Pacific to that which we are engaged in at Singapore. If they do, and if it was not stated at Washington when the limits of the Agreements were drawn that we intended to engage in this expenditure, then I am afraid that the other naval Powers who are Parties to the Agreements may consider that we have been that very undesirable tiling, rather clever.
THE MARQUES OF SALISBURY: I do not want to interrupt the noble Viscount, but he will see that he is making suggestions which really may do a great deal of harm if they are allowed to go without any comment. There has been no suggestion whatever, so far as I know, from any Government calling in question either the letter or the spirit of the Washington Agreements in relation to Singapore. That the base at Singapore was prominently in the mind of the British negotiators at Washington I know for certain. I cannot say, and I must not deceive the House, that they communicated this to the other Parties, but I should be immensely surprised if they had any doubt on the subject.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLO DON: I have been told that this feeling is abroad, and I want it countered as much as possible. It is clearly within our rights, technically, to do it, but I want this feeling countered, and I should like it made clear to public opinion that the other naval Powers in the Pacific do not suffer anything of which they have any reason to complain by the expenditure we are going to engage in at Singapore. That: is to say, that they knew, or had before them enough to know, when they signed the Washington Agreements, that they placed a restriction upon themselves, knowing perfectly well that this sort of thing was liable to happen as regards naval expenditure outside these limits, and quite close. I hope the noble Marquess is quite right in saying that there is no such feeling.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So far as I am aware.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: Then, when the Washington Agreements come

987
to an end, the noble Marquess who replied for the Admiralty said that by this dock at Singapore the potency of the British Fleet, as regards the Pacific and Indian Oceans, would be greatly increased; that when the Washington Agreements come to an end, so far as I understood his argument, if we had not this base and this expenditure, and if there was again open competition in naval shipbuilding, we may find ourselves with the necessity of building many more ships than we should have to do if we increased the efficiency of our existing ships by making this dock. That argument impressed us, but we shall not be the only people who will be impressed. For every million pounds of expenditure we make in increasing the efficiency of our Fleet in the Pacific one way or another, either before or after the Washington Agreements come to an end, there will be a corresponding expenditure by any other naval Power who feels that it may have to provide for precisely the converse contingency for which we are providing.
I am afraid that at Singapore we are again at the beginning of an increase for which you can make a perfectly good case, but which will lead to further increases and result in defeating in the long run the very objects which the Washington Agreements were designed to secure. I cannot feel that the expenditure on the dock at Singapore is really essential compared with other expenditure, and in times when great national economy is necessary it is absolutely essential that expenditure should be confined, first, to the things which are essential. I am not going to presume that the Government would accept any advice or suggestion from me with regard to the dock at Singapore seeing that they have so fully convinced themselves that it is not merely desirable but essential. I would say this, however. I am sure that in their own minds they intend to go very slowly in regard to expenditure at Singapore. It does not arise with this House to vote money, but the Government are beset on all sides with demands for expenditure. I hope and believe it will be the case that, though they feel that they are now committed to this expenditure, they will not be in a great hurry to commit themselves to large contracts; that they will go slowly until they have some opportunity of judging what its
988
effect will be on the Washington Agreements, and will not place themselves in the position of finding themselves committed to such large contracts at Singapore that when they are confronted with demands, much more essential, in the House of Commons, they will be obliged to refuse them by asking the House of Commons to vote money for what seems to me an advantage but not an essential, and in some ways an expenditure which is of doubtful expediency and policy.
On Question, Motion negatived.
LORD GORELL: It seems to me, after what the noble Marquess has said this afternoon, that it may be possible by the alteration of one word to make my Resolution such as may be accepted by the Government, and that is to substitute for the word " immediate " the words " at the earliest opportunity." That would bear out what actually fell from the noble Marquess, and I hope in that form the Government may be prepared to accept the Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the noble Lord will not press us to take that step. It would have the appearance that the House was forcing on the Government a policy from which, after all the declarations of the Government, we ought to be immune. We have said all that we think it discreet and proper to say To agree to the Motion of the noble Lord now would, I think, have the appearance that we were not all united in this policy. I am afraid I cannot accept the Motion.
LORD GORELL: In view of the noble Marquess's statement, and at this hour of the evening, I do not think that I need put the House to the trouble of a Division.

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE IN SOUTHERN IRELAND.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government what sums have been granted in accordance with the footnote to Paragraph 40 (6) of the Heads of Working Arrangements for implementing the Irish Free State Treaty.
[Paragraph 40 says—
"That for the period up to the 31st March, 1922—

" (a) The existing Votes, so far as they are applicable to Southern

989
Ireland, be placed at the disposal of the Temporary Provisional Government for the purposes for which they have been voted: and

" (b) Any additional sum agreed will be covered by a Special Vole, to be presented to Parliament as soon as possible, such sum being adjusted in the final settlement."*

"*The Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees to the recoupment of so much of the intercepted grants as have already been applied, on the understanding that the amount so recouped, so far as it represents compensation for payments for injuries to property, is regarded as forming part of the British Government's payment for compensation under paragraph 5 (e).''
Paragraph 5—
"That as respects injuries to property—
"(e) The British Government undertake to reimburse the Irish Government for such a proportion
990
of the total amount (including advances already made out of intercepted grants) as may be agreed between the two Governments the amount of the damage done to property in Great Britain in pursuance of the late Irish political movement being brought into account."]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, in reply to my noble friend I have to inform him that a sum of £1,130,000 was voted by Parliament in the spring of 1922 to be treated as a payment on account of the grants in question. I hope that this will give him the information which he desires.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I thank the noble Duke.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

NORTH BERWICK BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; road 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act. 1899), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no partios having appeared in opposition thereto: read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 21st and the 27th of June last discharged, and Bill committed for Wednesday next.

BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendment".
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL.
WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (DRAINAGE) BILL.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Report: from the Committee of Selection that the Lord Biddulph be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the placo of the Lord Lamingtion; read, and agreed to.

RUGBY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Committee to meet on Wednesday next.