Sitting of 7 March 1923

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Rugby Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  PEACE TREATIES.

    RHINELAND HIGH COMMISSION.
    Major-General Sir R. HUTCHISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether ordinances passed by the Rhineland High Commission with the object of furthering the French policy in the Ruhr and to which the British representative on the Commission has refused his consent, are applicable to the British area in Rhineland?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland on the 5th instant.
    17.Mr. CHARLES BUXTON asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission is claiming to exercise jurisdiction over certain territories on the right bank of the Rhine, that His Majesty's Government are advised that this claim is not justified by any provision of the Treaty of Versailles or of the Rhineland Agreement, and that the attention of the French Government has been called to the matter, he can now state whether any reply has yet been received; if so, what is the nature of such reply; and what
    456
    steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to avoid responsibility for this action of the Commission?
    Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second therefore does not arise. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member has already been informed that His Majesty's High Commissioner has on behalf of His Majesty's Government disclaimed all responsibility for that decision in which he took no part.

    FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.
    Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked the Tinder-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the black French troops in the occupied area are billeted in private houses or in barracks?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am not in a position to give the House any information respecting the billeting arrangements made by French military authorities.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries and find out, because it is contrary to public opinion that black troops should be used against white people?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!
    Mr. McNEILL: Without expressing any opinion upon the statement of the hon. Member, I think he will see that it. would be very unbecoming for us to make such inquiries.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why use white troops against white people?
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the number of French troops in the original occupied area of Germany; and what are the approximate number of French troops in Germany to-day, including the occupation of the Ruhr and Upper Rhine districts?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): I have been asked to reply. In round figures the number before the occupation of the Ruhr was 91,000. It is now 116,000.

    HUNGARY.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Little Entente has made any

    457
    proposal to occupy any part of Hungarian territory with a view to exacting the payment of reparations; and whether the British Government have expressed their opinion on the proposal?
    Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

    SERBIA AND BULGARIA.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has been consulted in regard to any proposal that Serbia should occupy any part of Bulgaria in order to enforce the payment of reparations; and what answer or comment has been made on the proposal by the British Government?
    Mr. McNEILL: The question of enforcing the observance by Bulgaria of her Treaty obligations under the Treaty of Neuilly has formed the subject of confidential consultation between the Allied Governments. It is not in the public interest to publish the particulars of such confidential discussions.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Are there any signs that the Serbian Government intend to behave in the same way as the French Government?
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any risk of Serbia following the Ruhr precedent?
    An HON. MEMBER: Wait and see.

    EASTERN GALICIA.
    Mr. C. BUXTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that Eastern Galicia is placed under the sovereignty of the principal Allied Powers by Article 91 of the Treaty of St. Germain, he will take immediate steps to secure that the Council of Ambassadors shall define the powers pertaining to the Polish military occupation of that country, and set up some authority to supervise the execution of such powers?
    Mr. McNEILL: The question of Eastern Galicia is now being considered by the Ambassadors' Conference.

    RHINELAND(BRITISH ZONE).
    Sir R.HUTCHSONasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information with regard to the isolation of the British area in Rhineland by Belgian and French troops; and whether communications between Cologne and Berlin have now to pass through a French or Belgian zone?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I have been asked to reply. In regard to the first part of the question, I am not aware in what sense the hon. and gallant Member uses the word "isolation," but no interruption of military communications or other military inconvenience is caused to the British area by the circumstance that it is adjoined on three sides by areas occupied by other Allied troops. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Sir R, HUTCHISON: Is it not a fact that Allied troops—French and Belgian—have occupied the neutral zone which used to be between the British area and the German area, contrary to the Treaty of Versailles, thereby cutting us off from direct access to Berlin without passing through the ranks of our Allies?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I have already answered that question.

    RHINELAND RAILWAYS.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister whether the Rhineland High Commission has passed an ordinance transferring the control of all the Rhineland railways to a Franco-Belgian civil administration; and what action the British Government has taken in the matter?
    Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, though, as the House has already been informed, the railways in the British zone will not come under this control. No action has been taken in the matter by His Majesty's Government, the British representative on the Rhineland Commission already having instructions to abstain from taking part in any measures or decisions arising out of the French and Belgian independent action.
    Captain BENN: Does this Franco-Belgian administration of the railways

    459
    affect in any way the traffic over the parts of the railways which lie in the British zone?
    Mr. McNEILL: I should not like to say that it does not affect it in any way, but I do not think it affects it in any vital way. The administration goes on exactly as before. There may be a certain amount of interference.
    Captain BENN: In what respect can the railways in the British zone be said to be exempt?
    Mr. McNEILL: Because they are not under the management of the French and Belgian authorities, and they are being conducted by German personnel as before.

    BRITISH GOODS, GERMANY.
    Major ATTLEEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that vessels on the Rhine containing goods consigned to, and paid for by, British importers are being held up by the French at Duisburg-Ruhrort, and that British importers are having to pay a 10 per cent.ad valorem duty and other charges in order to obtain their goods; and whether, in view of the growing irritation of the business community and the damage to British trade caused by this action, he will make immediate representations to the French Government on the matter?
    Mr. McNEILL: Arrangements have been concluded between His Majesty's High Commissioner and the local French and Belgian authorities whereby all export goods for British firms which were despatched before 20th February will be released immediately, provided that export duties at the old rates have been paid either to the Germans or to the Allied authorities. This decision applies to the old occupied territories, as well as to the ports of Emmerich, Duisburg and Ruhrort, where goods for British traders have been held up.

    PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
    Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will endeavour to enter into an arrangement with the Government of Italy for the nationals of the two kingdoms to cross their respective frontiers without the
    460
    necessity of visas, as is the case already with France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Holland, and especially in view of the well 'known fact that the Italian Government desires this arrangement?
    Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Bilston in this House on 21st February last (No. 12).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is the Government prepared to give facilities for the abolition of visas in any country with which they negotiate?
    Mr. McNEILL: If my hon. Friend will refer to the answer to which I have just alluded he will see what has been done.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of years for which a passport holds good without renewal for citizens of the United States of America, for France, and for Belgium; and what the cost of renewal is in each instance?
    Mr. McNEILL: United States passports, issued at a charge of 10 dollars, are valid for one year, and can be renewed for a further period of one year free of charge. French passports are valid for one year, at a charge of 12s., Belgian passports, for two years, at a charge of 2s. 3d. They are not renewable.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is there any reason why a passport should have a time limit when it has been granted once?
    Mr. McNEILL: That is a conundrum which the hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, put to someone else.

  SMYRNA.

    BRITISH WARSHIPS.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British naval ships recently sent to the port of Smyrna have with one exception been withdrawn; whether the French and Italian Governments were previously consulted or informed in regard to the withdrawal; and what reasons induced His Majesty's Government to take this action?
    Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government have replaced the "Calypso" by

    461
    the "Carysfort" and have withdrawn the "Curacao," which entered Smyrna on 8th February in accordance with the Allied policy of vindicating their right to free entry, together with the vessels supporting her outside the port. His Majesty's High Commissioner kept his Allied colleagues fully informed of the communication he was making to the Constantinople representative of the Angora Government on this subject. Once it became clear that the Turkish Government had accepted the principle of the presence of Allied ships at Smyrna, there was no longer any reason for retaining the additional vessels.

    BRITISH CLAIMS (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the steps that are being taken to protect the interests of British subjects whose goods or property were destroyed as a result of the disastrous fire and subsequent events which occurred after the withdrawal of the Greek army from Smyrna aim its occupation by the Turkish authorities; and whether any information can he given as to the prospects of early compensation?
    Mr. McNEILL: Claims for these losses may be registered with the Reparation Claims Department. It is riot possible for me to make any statement in regard to the prospect of compensation being received in respect of such claims until the conclusion of peace with Turkey.

    BRITISH MILITARY ATTACHE, LITHUANIA (ARREST).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received any apology for, or explanation of, the arrest of the British military attaché in Poland?
    Mr. McNEILL: The Lithuanian representative here has on behalf of his Government tendered to His Majesty's Government a formal apology for the arrest and ill-treatment of the British Military Attaché in Poland and has stated that a full explanation is on its way.

    BRITISH FISHERMEN, RUSSIA (RELEASE).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has as yet been received from His Majesty's representative at Moscow with reference to the steps taken to secure the release of British fishermen arrested by the Soviet Government?
    Mr. McNEILL: The British Agent at Moscow telegraphed on the 26th February that, according to a telegram from the People's Court at Murmansk, all the men have been released and are to be sent home by the first available ship. Mr. Hodgson added that he was telegraphing money for subsistence and inquiring as to the best means of repatriation.
    Viscount CURZON: From that reply does the Under-Secretary consider that the return of these men will not be long delayed?
    Mr. McNEILL: I think I can assure my Noble Friend that there will be rapid repatriation.

    BLUE NILE (IRRIGATION SCHEME).
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that numbers of Arabs who inhabit Egypt fear that the schemes for the development of the Sudan by irrigation and the building of a dam and harnessing the waters of the Blue Nile will impair Egyptian territory, more particularly during the seasons of a deficiency of water rising in the Nile, he will consider what steps should be taken to allay their fears upon this point?
    Mr. McNEILL: Having regard to the fact that the only irrigation scheme on the Blue Nile at present under construction or in contemplation was prepared by the Egyptian Ministry of Public Works, approved by an international commission of experts, and authorised by the Egyptian Government, no further steps of the nature suggested are considered necessary.

    AUSTRIA.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if

    463
    he will state under which article, protocol, or provision of the League of Nations scheme given in Command Paper No. 1765, Austria No. 1, 1922, the Austrian Government are being required to abolish the legal eight-hour day, old age pensions, and sickness insurance?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have no information that the Austrian Government contemplate the steps referred to by the hon. Member, and they are not required to do so under the League of Nations scheme referred to in the hon. Member's question.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SUBMARINE INDICATING NETS (INVENTOR'S AWARDS).
    Mr. HARBORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any award was ever given for the invention of the submarine indicating nets; if so, who was the individual who received the same; and could the information be given by the Admiralty as to the number of submarines that the nets were the means of destroying?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): The Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors awarded £1,500 to Mr. F. R. S. Bircham, late Commander, R.N.V.R., in addition to £150 which had been paid him by the Admiralty for the use of a design of indicator net put forward by him in October, 1915. No other sums have been awarded in respect of the nets, but several small awards have been paid for details connected with their use. Indicator nets have been credited with the destruction of two enemy submarines.

    ENGINE ROOM ARTIFICERS (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. PRIVETTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the actual number of fifth-class artificers who were recently drafted from the "Fisgard" to naval establishments for 12 months' service afloat to qualify for fourth-class certificates; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding that they had signed for 12 years' service, they have received compulsory notice of discharge in 30 days and are thus deprived of their certificate of efficiency to secure employ-
    464
    meat in the position for which they have trained; and will he consider the advisability of reinstating these men until they have completed at least a further year's service in order that they may not add further burdens to the Exchequer by way of unemployment benefit, for which they have been informed in their discharge notices they are eligible?
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the retention of the engine room artificers, fifth class, who left the "Fisgard" in January last for another 12 months in order that they might leave the Service fully trained instead of being partially trained as at present?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the possibility of transferring the engine-room artificers, fifth class, who have been so unexpectedly discharged from the Royal Navy and can find no other employment, to the Air Force?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am pleased to be able to announce that the Air Ministry have expressed their willingness to take over a large number of the surplus engine-room artificers, fifth class, provided suitable terms of transfer can be arranged.
    Sir B. FALLE: Will the Financial Secretary answer that part of my question relating to the retention of the engine-room artificers or say what will happen to them?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: If they are not taken over by the Air Ministry, they will be in the same position as everybody else who has had to be discharged, but they have the advantage of a strong recommendation

    WITNESSED PAY-SHEETS.
    Captain Viscount EDNAMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Admiralty proposes to introduce a new system of witnessed pay-sheets for their employés and abolish the necessity of their providing receipt stamps; and, if so, when?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with my Noble and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The question doubtless refers to the system of witnessed pay-sheets recently authorised by the Treasury under which signatures and receipt stamps are dispensed with when large numbers of persons on salary or wages are paid at one time. As regards workmen on wages, the system in question has been in operation for many years at the dockyards, etc., but is quite new as affecting other classes of employé At the Admiralty Office, the scheme was put into operation for certain classes on the 6th March, and will be extended as circumstances permit, such extension being subject to the institution of efficient safeguards against personation. At some of the dockyards, etc., the new arrangement was applied at the end of last month, and it is anticipated that at another dockyard it will be applied at the end of the current month. In other cases, however, its application is not desired by the staff or the numbers paid are not sufficiently large to justify its adoption.

    NAVAL RESERVE (NORTHERN IRELAND).
    Mr. FRANK GRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will inform the House of the precise nature of the assistance which has been promised to the Government of Northern Ireland in the creation of a Royal Naval Reserve, referred to by the Premier of the Northern Parliament?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The Board of Admiralty would view with much pleasure any support which the Government and people of Northern Ireland can give in the direction of maintaining the strength and efficiency of the Royal Naval Reserve in Northern Ireland, or of the establishment in Northern Ireland of a division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. There is, of course, no question of creating separate Naval Reserve Forces for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. GRAY: I beg to give notice that on this day week, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, I intend to tall attention to national expenditure in Northern Ireland and other directions.
    Viscount CURZON: If such a force is established in Northern Ireland, will there be an extra charge?
    Mr. AMERY: There is no question of establishing a separate force in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. It is merely a question of the establishment of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in Northern Ireland and will involve no more cost than any other Division.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the First Lord not aware that the establishment of such a force would be an increase of the total establishment?

    BATTLESHIP CONSTRUCTION (RIVER TYNE).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why delay is taking place with the proceeding of the work on the battleship on the Tyne; if he is aware that the pattern-makers, who ought to be among the first to start on the job, have not yet started; and, as there is no scarcity of materials, will he state why the pattern-makers and other workmen are not yet employed?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: No unavoidable delay is taking place in connection with the work on the battleship in question. The drawing office staffs are engaged in the preparation of the necessary working drawings for issue to the shops, and pattern-making can only commence as these drawings become completed.

    WAR CLASPS.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give a date on which the clasps awarded to the Royal Navy (A.O. 2051, C.W. 1654, August, 1920) and sanctioned by His Majesty will be given; and what is the cause a the delay of over two years?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I regret I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for South Battersea on the 13th December last.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is not very satisfactory? Is it the fact that the question of Army clasps is standing in the way? If so, is he aware that the clasps for the Navy have been approved, while those for the Army have not even been considered? That being so, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the question?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am afraid I am only in a position to give the same unsatisfactory answer.

    DOCKYARD RATINGS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether naval ratings in dockyards outside this country are subject to reduction under the recent Order?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: On the assumption that the Order for compulsory discharge of naval ratings is referred to, the answer is in the negative.

    DOCKYARDS (WORKING HOURS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that under a recent Admiralty order those crane-drivers, engine-drivers, etc., who are required by the nature of their work to be in the dockyard, sometimes as early as five o'clock in the morning, in order to get ready for the work of the day are no longer paid overtime but have to take a compulsory holiday without pay to make up for the extra time worked, an arrangement which compels them to work many hours longer than other men without receiving any pay at all, the only extra remuneration given being the quarter-hours of the hour and a quarter; that this change is causing universal dissatisfaction; and can he see his way to revert to the old arrangement whereby these men were paid overtime for the extra hours worked?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This arrangement was made on the initiative of the trade union side of the Industrial Council, who have now asked that the question may be reconsidered. This is now being done.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the Admiralty fully appreciate that that account is entirely wrong?

    SCHOOLMASTERS.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to increase the number of naval schoolmasters; and, if so, whether it will consider the advisability of allowing engine-room artificers now being discharged on reduc-
    468
    tion of the personnel of the Navy, in view of their sea experience, to take the examinations, in common with men from His Majesty's dockyards, for the position of probationary naval schoolmaster?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Schoolmasters have not yet been entered up to the full number required. Should engine-room artificers, on discharge, apply to be entered as schoolmaster candidates, their entry, as in the case of all other applicants, would depend on their qualifications and training.

    WARRANT OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether 50 years of age is to be retained as the age for the compulsory retirement of warrant officers and naval officers promoted from that rank; and, if so, will similar pension and gratuity conditions be applied on their retirement as under the last reduction order?
    Mr. AMERY: It is the intention to retain 50 as the age of compulsory retirement in those warrant officer branches in which the age was reduced to 50 under the special scheme of retirement. The answer to the last part of 'the question is in the negative.
    Mr. YOUNG: Are these who were not retired under the recent Order and whose services were not dispensed with if compulsorily retired at some later date, to get similar conditions to those laid down in the recent Order?
    Mr. AMERY: In future the age will be 50, and the conditions applied will he those applied on retirement on termination of services previously.

    COASTGUARD.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he proposes to introduce legislation to repeal the Coastguard Service Act, 1856; whether any steps will be taken to reduce the Coastguard before such legislation has been passed; whether he can state what will be the effect of the proposed reductions; and on what principle it is proposed that they should be carried out?
    Mr. AMERY: The legislation required to enable the Board of Trade to carry out their new duties is under consideration, and a Bill will, no doubt, be introduced

    469
    as soon as possible. Arrangements are being made to discharge the personnel of the Coastguard (other than that required for the Naval Signalling Service) with compensation or pension as the case may be, but every endeavour will be made to recruit the personnel required for the Board of Trade and Customs Services respectively from the discharged Coastguard, those retained being selected according to their qualifications in signals and wireless telegraphy and to their general suitability.
    Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand the men will be discharged before such legislation is proceeded with?
    Mr. AMERY: I do not think that necessarily follows.
    Viscount CURZON: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that legislation was under consideration. If legislation is necessary, are you going to carry out the discharges before it is passed?
    Mr. AMERY: I should like to have notice of that question.

    LOWER DECK (PROMOTION).
    Mr. A. T. DAVIESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the uneasiness which prevails in the lower deck ratings of the Navy owing to the lack of opportunities for promotion; whether he is aware that large numbers of men of proved ability have no chance of promotion; that many men have been discharged at the climax of their careers during the past two years, and that wardroom officers who had risen from the ranks have figured prominently in recent compulsory discharges; and whether further discharges are to be made at the close of this month.
    Mr. AMERY: The large surplus of officers on the list has naturally and unavoidably prejudiced the chances of promotion to a great extent during the past few years, but the effect of the reductions which have been made will be to remove these surpluses entirely and thus restore the flow of promotion, though necessarily not to the same extent as before the War owing to the reduced total establishment of officers. All the retirements which were cue to be made in the warrant officers branches were completed last year and promotion to gunner and gunner (T)
    470
    was resumed in November. No further retirements of lieutenant ex-mate are contemplated, although a few already selected have not definitely left the active list but will do so before the 31st March. These retirements will not effect the next selection for mate, which is not due to take place until December next. I may add that, at the last selection in December, 1922, six candidates were selected and this number would have been greater had a sufficient number of qualified and recommended candidates who were suitable for promotion come forward.

    PERSONNEL (REDUCTIONS).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the compulsory termination of the engagements of men to be discharged before the end of the current financial year, the Admiralty will give them the opportunity to rejoin when recruiting commences in their respective branches; and whether they will be permitted to rejoin in the rating they held on discharge?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: When recruiting re-commences it will be open for discharged men, in most cases, to reenter, but it will not be possible to allow them to count their former service, as this would largely reproduce the conditions which have required the present. discharges.

    DISCHARGE BY PURCHASE.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent innovation whereby naval ratings may he discharged from His Majesty's Service with a month's notice despite the fact that by reason of conduct and efficiency their retention is desirable, the system of discharge by purchase will be abolished and one month's notice on the part of ratings desirous of leaving the Service will be accepted as final and their final discharge authorised?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: It will still be necessary to maintain the system of discharge by purchase. Recent orders for the compulsory discharge of a certain number of naval ratings were necessitated by the very large reductions in the Fleet.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is not the Government under an obligation to these men?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: No. This is an isolated case affecting a relatively small number of men, and the recommendation would not be justified.

    COAL CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty what steps are taken to ensure that firms to whom Admiralty coal contracts are allotted comply with the Fair Wages Clause in respect of their supervisory electrical staffs; and whether he will have special inquiries made into the rates paid to such staff by the Powell-Duffryn and Ocean Coal Company?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: All collieries contracting with the Admiralty should observe the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons. If the hon. Member contends that the Resolution is being infringed by the Powell-Duffryn Coal Company and Ocean Coal Company in respect of the electrical supervisory staffs engaged in the execution of a contract for the supply of coo., for naval use, and will furnish me with full details, the Admiralty will inquire into the matter.

    COMMERCIAL AIRSHIP SERVICE.
    Mr. MOREINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty propose to devote any and, if so, what sums towards the maintenance of airships?
    Mr. AMERY: The recommendations of the Admiralty with regard to the desirability of contributing to the maintenance of a commercial airship service are now under consideration by the Government.
    Captain BENN: Will the House have an opportunity of voting directly on the issue whether the Admiralty shall take over air work?
    Mr. AMERY: That question has been answered by the Prime Minister.

    NAVY ESTIMATES.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has come to any final decision on the subject of presenting the Estimates classified as to the purposes of expenditure on the same plan as the Army
    472
    Estimates, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on National Expenditure?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer is in the negative. On the general aspect of this matter I would invite attention to the Third Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1921, paragraphs 17 to 23. Reference to that Report will show that the Committee were of opinion that it would be wise to await fuller experience of the results obtained from the operation of the scheme in the accounts of the Army before extending the system to other Departments. The hon. Member will no doubt appreciate that any radical change in the form of Estimates and accounts would require the concurrence of the Committee on Public Accounts.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Was not that recommendation made two years ago? Is it not now time to deal with the question?
    Mr. AMERY: I think we had better wait for fuller information.

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS (SCRAPPING)
    Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made by the various signatories to the Washington Treaty in scrapping the units of their fleet in excess of their establishment under the said Treaty; whether a specified date was arranged for the completion of their respective disarmament; and, if so, when does this time expire?
    Mr. AMERY: As the reply to the first part of the question is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. and gallant. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    As regards the second part, the date of rendering unfit for further warlike service ships to be scrapped under the Washington Treaty is six months after the date of the Treaty being ratified by all the signatories.
    Captain EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the United States of America had in commission at the time the Treaty was signed any capital ships which should have been scrapped under the Treaty, and if any progress has been made with scrapping them?
    Mr. AMERY: A very considerable number of ships were under construction which fell due to be scrapped, as well as some of the older vessels. A beginning has been made with the scrapping of the latter.
    The reply to the first part of the question is as follows:
    United States of America.
    Work on 11 capital ships under construction has been stopped.
    Two battleships have been sold and are being broken up.
    Five battleships have been dismantled preparatory to sale.
    These last seven ships are all of obsolete type.
    Japan.
    Work on two capital ships under construction has been stopped.
    Five capital ships have had their armament removed.
    Eight capital ships have been paid off.
    France and Italy.Not affected.
    British Empire.
    The programme of four capital ships abandoned and two capital ships of smaller tonnage substituted.
    18 capital ships have been rendered incapable of further warlike service, and 17 of these have been sold for complete breaking up.

    FRENCH DESTROYERS.
    Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information as to the ceding to Brazil of two French destroyers in exchange for two ex-German steamers, and what effect this has on the Washington Agreement?
    Mr. AMERY: I am informed that this report is without foundation.

    EX-GERMAN MINE SWEEPERS (ARGENTINE).
    Sir G. HAMILTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether six ex-German mine sweepers have been secured by the Argentine Government;
    474
    whther these mine sweepers were covered by the Clause in connection with the German fleet in the Treaty of Versailles; and what armament, if any, these mine sweepers carry?
    Mr. AMERY: Ten ex-German mine sweepers were sold by the firm of Hugo Stinnes to the Argentine Government in August, 1922. All war material and warlike characteristics were removed from these vessels and surrendered to the Allies under Article 192 of the Versailles Treaty. They were. then, in accordance with Article 181 of the Treaty, available for commercial use.

    NAVAL HISTORY OF THE WAR.
    Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that an ex-lndian civil servant is employed in writing the naval history of the War at a salary of £500 per annum while in receipt of £1,000 a year pension; and whether he will give the work to some naval officer who is at present without an appointment?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): As regards the first part of the question, my hon. Friend is misinformed. A pensioned Indian civil servant is employed in the naval branch of the historical section of the Committee of Imperial Defence at a salary of £500 per annum. He is not engaged in writing the naval history of the War, but is responsible for the selection and arrangement of Admiralty papers of historical interest. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given by the Prime Minister on 5th December and the First Lord of the Admiralty on 21st February last.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Is not this ex-civil servant in receipt of £1,000 a year as pension? If so, ought not this work to be given to someone else?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is that that is so. With regard to the second part, this gentleman was appointed to the work some time ago on the recommendation of the Admiralty, and I have yet to know that the receipt of a pension is a sufficient reason for discharging a man.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Does not justice demand that men entirely out of employment should be given this work?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet received any Report from the Committee appointed by his predecessor to consider what steps could be taken to remove the disability at present placed upon the innocent victims of an industrial dispute from receiving unemployment benefit to which they have duly contributed when thrown out of work on account of a dispute to which they are in no way parties?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The Committee referred to by the hon. Member has not yet submitted a Report.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the great delay that has taken place, table an Amendment himself that might be embodied in the Bill to meet this injustice?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I cannot undertake to do that. The Committee was appointed because the matter is one of great difficulty, and the mere fact that there has been considerable delay in presenting the Report is, I think, indicative of the nature of the position.

    STATISTICS.
    Captain SHIPWRIGHTasked the Minister of Labour the total numbers of unemployed on 1st January, 1921, 1st July, 1921, 1st December, 1922, and 1st March, 1923?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The numbers of persons on the Live Registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at the dates nearest to those mentioned were:

    1st January, 1921

    701,179

    1st July, 1921

    2,040,278

    4th December, 1922

    1,389,894

    26th February, 1923

    1,328,000

    I have no means of stating the total number unemployed at those dates.
    Captain SHIPWRIGHT: Cannot something be learned from these figures, particularly the figure for July, 1921, by some hon. Members opposite?

    MEIROS COLLIERIES, LLANHARRAN?(D. ADAMS).
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that David Adams, a miner, formerly employed at the Meiros Collieries, Llanharran, Glamorgan, has been discharged on the allegation of filling dirty coal; that he has since been refused his unemployment benefits by the Ministry of Labour on the ex-parte statement of the colliery company; whether he will have inquiries made into this case; whether it is the practice of the Ministry of Labour to accept the ex-parte statements of colliery companies in such cases; and will he issue instructions that no miner is to be deprived of his unemployment benefits on such charges without being given an opportunity to disprove the said charges?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am making inquiry as to whether the Exchange in this case followed the usual practice, which is to supply the applicant with a copy of any statement by his last employer which may lead to refusal of benefit. I may mention that a statement from David Adams was put before the Insurance Officer, together with the employer's statement, and he also stated his case in person before the Court of Referees, which upheld the disallowance of benefit.
    Mr. JONES: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reason given, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the first opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

    ROAD WIDENING, COWBRIDGE.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, in connection with a local public works relief scheme for road widening being carried out by the Cowbridge Rural District Council, Glamorgan, part of the work of widening Boverton Bridge under this scheme is being carried out by a local farmer, who employs men and horses otherwise fully employed on his farm, when there are a number of unemployed men in the locality and haulage contractors in the locality who are unemployed or only partially employed; is he aware that farmers and farm workers are not insured under the Unemployment Acts; and will he state whether any con-

    477
    ditions are made in schemes which were sanctioned by Parliament that work shall be found for the unemployed?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am informed that the contractors executing the scheme on behalf of the local authority have employed a local farmer to carry out a small amount of cartage. This work employs one or two men only, and is a very small portion of the whole scheme, which has provided employment for as many as 60 men.
    Mr. JONES: Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's own policy is to provide work by these schemes for the unemployed, and that these people have work other than this to do, while unemployed people in the locality have nothing to do?

    BENEFIT AND WAGES.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Labour if he will be prepared to consider, or has considered, a scheme of unemployment relief whereby on every contract or order of the value of £5,000 or over the placer of the contract be credited with half the weekly payment which would otherwise have been paid in full to each unemployed worker, had he not been specifically engaged in connection with such contract, it being made a condition, if necessary, that unemployed men be taken on as far as possible in connection with such work?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have not seen any scheme precisely on the lines indicated. The recently published Report of the Cabinet Committee—of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy—considered the general question of using unemployment benefit in aid of wages, and points out the grave objections to any such arrangement and I am afraid that similar objections would apply to the proposal mentioned by the hon. Member.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a youth of 17½ years of age applied for benefit at the Rutherglen Employment Exchange last week, and gave as his reasons that the wage paid him by Weir's of Cathcart, as a machineman, was 11s. 6d. for 47 hours, with is deducted for insurance and 1s. 6d. for car fares; and whether, since these wages are less than unemployment benefit, he will see that benefit is paid to such cases meantime?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to the hon. Member. I may point out, however, that the weekly rate of benefit payable to a boy of 17½ years is 7s. 6d.
    Mr. HARDIE: While the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiries, will he ask the Noble Lord whether this wage of 11s. 6d. to a young man taking three meals a day is in keeping with his idea of relativity and starvation?
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give instructions that, where unemployment benefit has been refused on the ground that the applicant has not produced evidence of search for work, the applicant shall be entitled to a re-hearing to enable him to produce any further evidence?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Refusals of benefit on this ground are invariably the result of a recommendation by the local employment committee. If applicants have any further evidence to bring forward, the committees, so far as I am aware, are always ready to grant. a re-hearing.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what method is adopted to notify the applicant when his case is being heard that it is necessary for him to produce such evidence?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The practice of the committee is fairly well known in the locality.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour the. number of single men who have applied for unemployment benefit, and the number of claims disallowed since 1st July, 1922?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The records kept do not show separately the number of single men who have applied for unemployment benefit since July, 1922, nor the number of such claims which have been disallowed.
    Mr. SHORT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dissatisfaction that arises through disallowing benefit to these men, and will he make. exhaustive inquiries?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am afraid that every applicant whose application is refused is probably dissatisfied.

    CHINA-CLAY WORKERS.
    Captain SHIPWRIGHTasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the number of china-clay workers registered as totally unemployed on 1st November, 1922, and 1st March, 1923; and, if so, what are the figures?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The numbers of china-clay workers registered at Employment Exchanges as unemployed at the nearest dates available are 254 at 11th November, 1922, and 140 at 5th February, 1923.

    RECONSTRUCTION WORK (FRANCE AND BELGIUM).
    Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGANasked the Minister of Labour whether any suggestions have been made to him with regard to the employment of British workers on reconstruction work in the devastated area of France or Belgium; and, if so, whether he has arrived at any decision in the matter?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have just received the report of an inquiry made into this question, and hope to be able shortly to reach a decision on the matter.

    RELIEF WORKS, GLASGOW (WAGES).
    Mr. MUIRasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, while the number of men employed on relief work by the Glasgow Corporation has increased since 23rd December from 3,594 to 3,614 on 10th February, the anomalous situation arises that the number of those in receipt of the full standard rate of wages has decreased from 2,968 on 23rd December to 2,726 on 10th February, and the number of those in receipt of 75 per cent. of the standard rate has increased from 626 to 888 on the above dates, respectively; and, in view of this apparent use of the 75 per cent. regulation for the chief purpose of evading the payment of the full standard rate to those who have qualified for it, will he consider the advisability of entirely withdrawing that Regulation?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have no information to show how many of the men employed on relief works by the Glasgow Corporation are in receipt of the standard rate of wages, but I do not think that the figures quoted by the hon. Member necessarily indicate that men qualified to
    480
    receive the full rate are not, in fact, receiving it. I may say that the majority of men employed are understood to be on works for which no State assistance is being received, and their wages are accordingly not governed by the Government Regulation on the matter.
    Mr. MUIR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite common where they are engaged in relief work in Glasgow that, having concluded the six months' probationary period, which entitles them to full rate, they are discharged and new men taken on?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men engaged on these schemes are doing precisely the same class of work, and is he not of the opinion that they ought to be paid the same rate?
    Sir M. BARLOW: That, of course, begs the whole question.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into it?
    Sir M BARLOW: With regard to the first supplementary, if any facts are put before me, I will look into them.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Glasgow Corporation themselves are in sympathy with the proposal to pay the same rate to these men?

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE (HORBURY).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour whether he will reconsider the decision to close the Employment Exchange at Horbury, near Wakefield, on 6th March next; whether he is aware that the unemployment figures are going up in that district, and that a paper works employing 200 persons is closing down until June next; and, if he cannot agree to continue the Exchange, will he allow a clerk to attend at Horbury on certain mornings in the week so that unemployed persons may be able to register without having to walk miles daily to either Wakefield or Osset?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The Horbury Branch Employment Office will not be closed before 31st March, and the question whether it should be kept open after that date is still under consideration. I may add that Horbury is only two miles from Ossett and three from Wakefield where

    481
    Employment Exchange facilities already exist, and signatures would only be required on alternate days from applicants coming from Roxbury.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour why benefit is not being paid to Neil Gillies, 6, Eglington Lane, at the Glasgow South Side Exchange for the past nine weeks; and, if the reason is alleged fraud, why the man has not been prosecuted before now or, on the other hand, paid benefit?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The circumstances of this claim have been under investigation. The insurance officer has now disallowed the claim. The claimant has the usual right of appeal to a Court of Referees.

    TIN MINERS, CORNWALL.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Minister of Labour the number of tin miners and tin streamers who are now registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Cornwall, and the average weekly payment of Unemployment Benefit paid to these men?
    Sir M. BARLOW: At the beginning of February the number of tin miners and tin streamers registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Cornwall was 1,834. Assuming that these workpeople drew the same average per head as unemployed workpeople generally, the weekly amount drawn by them was, approximately, £1,250.

    LOANS (BOARDS OF GUARDIANS).
    Mr. THOMSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether, in view of the prolonged period of unemployment and consequent. heavy burdens thrown on the local rates by out-relief charges, he will considerably extend the period for which he has authorised loans to be raised by hoards of guardians and, in those cases where money has been lent by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, will he make representations so that the rate of Interest charged is not more than the cost, so that the taxpayer does not make a profit at the expense of the ratepayer?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The maxi-
    482
    mum period for which my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) had power to sanction loans in respect of current expenses in ten years. The circumstances of every application are carefully considered with a view to fixing an appropriate period within that maximum. The interest charged is the prevailing market rate for loans of similar currency.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has not the time come when these necessitous areas should get a lower rate of interest on these special loans?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Who is my hon. Friend's "right hon. Friend" mentioned in the reply?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member reads the answer, he will see that "my right hon. Friend," who had power to sanction loans, was the right hon. Gentleman the late Member for Taunton.

    RELIEF WORKS (SUNDERLAND).
    Mr. ROBERT WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he is aware that on the Sunderland barrack site relief works, which is regarded as coming within the category of constructional engineering work, the workmen have had their wages reduced in conformity with a reduction in the wages of the road men employed by the local authority; and whether, since the regulations governing the payment of wages on relief work provide that the percentage rate must be based upon the lowest wages paid to the employés of (he local authority concerned, he will make representations to the Sunderland Council on this matter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think there is any ground for intervention in this case. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the conditions laid down by the Unemployment Grants Committee as regards wages.

    THATCHAM BOARD AND PAPER MILLS.
    Major ATTLEEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Thateham Board and Paper Mills, Limited, are working their employés

    483
    on 12-hour shifts; and whether, in view of the fact that the Government advanced £100,000 for the building of the mill under a development scheme and that unemployment is so severe, he will bring pressure to bear on this company to revert to the 8-hour shift formerly in operation?
    Sir M. BARLOW: So far as I am aware, no assistance has been given under the Trade Facilities Act to the Thatcham Board and Paper Mills, Limited. I do not know under what circumstances the 12-hour shift is being worked. I am sure that employers generally recognise the importance of ensuring the maximum amount of employment, and I am calling this firm's attention to the hon. Member's question.
    Major ATTLEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a guarantee was given to this firm for the building of these mills, and does not that imply some consideration on the part of the Government Department?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have answered that. I have said that I believe the position to be that the guarantee was not given to this particular mill.
    Mr. RILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in making inquiries, bear in mind that all the trade unions concerned with the class of labour referred to have a firm agreement for a 48-hour week?
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the relations between the management and the employés have always been of a cordial nature, and will he see that the extension of these works awl factory is not hindered in any way, in view of the fact that when they are completed they will give employment to nearly 1,000 men and women, to the great advantage of the trade and commerce of the country?

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake that no disintegration of the Air Service shall be sanctioned until the House of Commons has approved of the same by a direct vote?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to him on Monday last in reply to a supplementary question on this subject.
    Captain BENN: Does not the Prime Minister realise the importance of making no vital change, such as this is, in the administration of the Air Service, without getting the direct assent of the House of Commons?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I feel that it is a subject on which the House of Commons ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion; but there is just the possibility that the Committee may report when the House is not sitting, and I do not wish to be under an obligation to present it to the House of Commons.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the naval demand only affects 5 per cent. of the Air Force, and can he break down the dog-in-the-manger attitude of the Air Force?

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Captain A. EVANSasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that this House has in effect no control whatsoever over expenditure, whether he will set up a Royal Commission to explore the possibilities of introducing other and more satisfactory measures whereby this House would have a certain amount of control over all national expenditure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not agree that the House has no effective control over expenditure, and I do not think any useful result would follow from the appointment of a Royal Commission.

    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (PRO POIITIONAL REPRESENTATION).
    Mr. C. ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister if he has considered that the successful candidate in the recent election at Mitcham obtained only 38 per cent. of the total votes polled, whereas other candidates secured 62 per cent. of the votes; and whether he will introduce a scheme of proportional representation, so as to prevent candidates

    485
    who poll only a minority of the votes from being elected to this House at the next General Election?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Has the Prime Minister any fellow-feeling for candidates who get returned by a minority vote?

    LIVING (COST).
    Captain SHIPWRIGHTasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the figures for the cost of living on 1st November, 1922, and 1st March, 1923?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The Ministry of Labour cost-of-living index number showed an increase of 80 per cent. over the pre-War level at 1st November, 1922, and of 77 per cent. at 1st February, 1923. Information relating to 1st March will be published about the 17th of this month.

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (ARBITRATION).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that we have now 12 years' experience of the, Canadian Arbitration Act, as amended in 1910, and applied to means of communication and mines; and, in view of its success in preventing strikes and lock-outs as compared with the state of affairs in Great Britain in the same period, whether the question of applying similar legislation to this country has been considered?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The working of the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act has been closely watched, but available statistics do not indicate that it has achieved that measure of success which my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. I may perhaps point out that in this country the power to hold an independent court of inquiry in appropriate cases, when the parties to a dispute are unable to adjust the difference, is already contained in the Industrial Courts Act, and I do not consider that the present powers for securing the settlement of industrial disputes require to be extended in the manner proposed.

    CABINET TRADE DISPUTE, TOTTENHAM.
    Mr. ROBERT MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour whether he has taken, or intends to take, any steps to invite the firm of Messrs. Harris Lebus, Finsbury Cabinet Works, Tottenham, to confer with the representatives of the Furnishing Trades' Association, with a view to bring to an end the present lock-out?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I understand that this firm is a member of the London Cabinet and Upholstery Trades Federation, and that under the working rules for the cabinet trade of London, agreed upon between the federation and the trade union, conciliation machinery is provided for the adjustment of disputes and the avoidance of stoppages of work. My Department has been in touch with the parties, but, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, it is our policy not to attempt to intervene in a trade dispute unless and until existing conciliation machinery in the trade has been fully utilised.
    Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man has deliberately torn up an agreement of the Cabinet Makers' Association which has been in force in London for the last 20 years?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I think my answer covers a point like that.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    KING'S ROLL,
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that in England and Wales the majority, 1,371 out of 2,431, and in Scotland the great majority, 236 out of 333, of local authorities were shown in the "Labour Gazette" for January as not being on the King's Roll; and what steps he proposes to take to prevail on these local authorities to qualify for inclusion on the Roll?
    Sir M. BARLOW: In the case of the smaller local authorities there is considerable difficulty in complying with the conditions for membership of the King's Roll, but when all allowance has been made for this, the position is by no means

    487
    as satisfactory as it might be. I say that, frankly, the question of the further steps which should be taken with regard to local authorities generally is one which falls within the province of the King's Roll National Council, and I should, of course, consider very carefully any recommendation that the council might make on the subject.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will my right hon. Friend give the names of the local authorities which have not subscribed to the King's Roll?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities give work to men, not because they were in the Army but. because they are citizens, and have obligations to carry out?

    SHORTHAND-TYPISTS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has declared its willingness to make arrangements for the training of disabled ex-service men as shorthand-typists; and whether anything has yet been done in this direction?
    Sir M. BARLOW: A number of ex-service men have been, and are being, trained to commercial subjects, including, in many instances, shorthand-writing and typewriting. It is not thought advisable to train men as shorthand-typists only, as the prospects of their being satisfactorily employed subsequently are not favourable. A few men have been trained as press reporters.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that cases have occurred in which women have been substituted in various Departments, have then received a training grant from the Ministry of Labour, and, on conclusion of such training, have been reposted to Departments in the capacity of shorthand-typists; and why a similar arrangement could not be made immediately applicable to ex-service men?
    Sir M. BARLOW: A few women discharged from Government Departments have received a training grant from the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment, and have subsequently obtained Government posts as shorthand-typists in open competition. There was no arrangement when they were dis-
    488
    charged that they should be re-employed as typists. As is the usual practice of commercial firms, shorthand-typing is generally regarded by Government Departments, in accordance with the Lytton Report, as being work proper to women.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has the opinion of the men in question been asked?

    WATCH AND CLOCK REPAIRING.
    Mr. NEWBOLDasked the Minister of Labour what are the reasons for terminating, before the time agreed upon with the trainees, the period of instruction irk watch and clock repairing of disabled ex-service men at the Government instructional factory, Bolton Road, Salford; and whether he can see his way clear to reconsider this matter, which is causing dissatisfaction amongst ex-service men so affected?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The original course of training in watch and clock repairing was for 12 months only, all of which was in a training centre. This was subsequently extended to 18 months in a training centre, but after some experience of the extended course it was decided in May, 1922, on the express recommendations of the National Trade Advisory Committee for the Gold, Silver and Allied Trades, that in the interests of the trainees themselves the final six months of the training period should in all cases be spent in an employer's workshop. In no case is the period of training with maintenance less than 18 months. In addition, the 12 months in a training centre may be extended up to a maximum of 15 months, if an improvership with maintenance is not immediately available.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of referring Question 75 to Moscow?

    RECORD OFFICE, Kew (DISMISSALS).
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the women still retained in the claims and record office at Kew are doing precisely the same work as was done up to a few weeks ago by ex-service men now dismissed, and why they were retained in preference to the men.
    Sir M. BARLOW: As I have already stated, the temporary women retained in the Claims and Record Office are all

    489
    doing work of a routine and semi-manipulative character, graded as below the ordinary clerical standard, and normally performed by women, or are supervising the women engaged on that work. These arrangements are in accordance with the terms of the Lytton Report. A limited number of temporary ex-service men have been employed from time to time on this low-grade work, and a few are at present so employed, as I am very anxious to avoid the discharge of ex-service men wherever possible, but., while I have. agreed to this employment as an emergency arrangement, I can hold out no hope of its extension.
    Sir B. FALLE: Were any of the ex-service men who were dismissed in-efficient?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. HARRISON: Are not some of these women ex-service women who did service in the War?

    MINISTRY OF 'LABOUR, KEW (DISMISSALS).
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour what steps, if any, have been taken to check the statements of the women employed at the Kew Claims and Record Office that they are all hardship cases and entirely dependent upon their earnings?
    Sir M. BARLOW: A full investigation into the personal circumstances of each of the temporary women serving at Kew, and into the statements made by them, was conducted by the Director of Establishments for the Ministry, assisted by a woman officer.

    FARM LABOURERS' WAGES,TUDLOW AND WRESTLINGWORTH.
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to a strike of farm labourers at Tudlow and Wrestlingworth against a reduction of wages from 24s. to 21s. 3d. pew week, the rent of the council houses being les, 4d. per week; and whether, since it is not possible for a man to keep himself, his wife, and four children, and pay rent on this wage, he will take action in the matter?
    Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply for the Minister of Agriculture. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Taunton on the 26th February, he is aware of the dispute in question and has placed the services of one of his officers at the disposal of the parties with a view to assisting them in arriving at a settlement. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the rents charged for the council houses, nor whether any of the labourers concerned occupy such houses at the rent stated.
    Mr. LINFIELD: Will the hon. Member put the matter to the test as to whether it is possible to live on 10s. 11d. a week and keep a wife and four children?

    EX-SERVICE NURSES.
    Major ASTORasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled ex-service nurses have completed courses of training; and what percentage have obtained employment, in the occupations in which they have been trained?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Between 1st January, 1920, and 31st December, 1922, 173 disabled nurses completed courses of training. I am glad to say that, in spite of the difficulty of providing employment even for women who have no war disability, 64 per cent. are employed in the occupation for which they were trained. Of the rest, 11 per cent. are at present unemployed owing to ill health, 4 per cent. have married since they completed their training, and 21 per cent. are unemployed or their position is unknown. The last figure includes a number of women who completed their training at the end of December and did not secure employment immediately.

  HOUSING.

    LOCAL SCHEMES (MEN EMPLOYED).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the total number of men now employed upon the erection of houses for local authorities by the various schemes sanctioned under the provisions of The Housing and Town Planning Act, 1919, and the maximum number previously so employed at any one time?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS (Parliamentary Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): On 1st February, 1923, there were 18,470 men employed on State assisted housing schemes-of local authorities under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919. Statistics of the number of men employed on other housing work are not available. The maximum number employed on assisted schemes was in July, 1921, when the number was 149,854.
    Mr. THOMSON: Arising out of that very big reduction in the number of men employed on building houses, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Prime Minister as to the necessity of introducing the Housing Bill at the earliest possible moment, so that these men may be employed?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hardly think that is necessary. The Prime Minister is quite well aware of the position.
    Mr. THOMSON: How long shall we have to wait?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not long.

    DRAINAGE (LLANTWIT MAJOR).
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he is aware of the bad state of the drainage of sewage in connection with the State-assisted houses built by the Cowbridge Rural District Council at Llantwit Major, Glamorgan, and of the repeated complaints made by the tenants and by the local parish council for months past to the said rural council without avail; and will he take steps to have these drainage defects remedied immediately?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No complaints have been received in regard to the drainage of the houses in question, but I will make inquiries into the matter.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local parish council have protested to the rural council, and that I have personally visited the spot, and the facts are as stated in the question?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that Ministers cannot be responsible for protests which do not reach them. No protest has reached the Minister.

    SLUM PROPERTY, POPLAR.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he is aware that a considerable amount of slum property in the borough of Poplar has been abandoned; that the local authority has no means of tracing the owners, consequently many people are living under insanitary conditions owing to the local authority being powerless to deal with the matter; and will he, when introducing the new Housing Bill, include such provisions as will enable local authorities to take over such properties without compensation, and either by restoration or rebuilding make them fit for human habitation?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Local authorities already have wide powers under the Housing Acts of acquiring and reconstructing slum properties by means of schemes which, as soon as approved by the Minister, enable the procedure of the Lands Clauses Acts to be applied. These Acts contain special provisions for dealing with cases where owners of property cannot he found. The question whether further legislation is desirable will be considered in connection with the new Housing Bill.

    OVERCROWDING (POPLAR).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he is aware that there is very considerable overcrowding in various parts of the borough of Poplar, and that this overcrowding has existed for many years past, and results in great sickness and distress amongst the people obliged to crowd together in so unhealthy a manner, and also adds to the death rate in the districts concerned; whether he is aware that his Department, although appealed to on many occasions, has refused permission to the local borough council to acquire sites in Poplar and in Bow on which new houses and flats might be built which would, to some extent, relieve the situation and whether he will give instructions that the Poplar Council shall be given permission to acquire the sites and get on with the provision of houses?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is understood that the hon. Member is

    493
    referring to two sites which, after very full consideration, were not approved under the late assisted scheme on grounds of cost. Apart from the question of financial assistance, the approval of the Minister of Health to the purchase of sites by the borough council is not required, and it is understood that the council recently decided to purchase one of the sites.

    NEW HOUSES.
    Sir EDWIN STOCKTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether the Government. has considered the effect of the policy of decontrol of all new houses built from now onwards; and whether, seeing that this would start building, he will say what are the objections, if any, to such a course?
    Sir W. JOYNSON HICKS: Under the present law, there are no restrictions of any kind affecting new houses, or old houses newly converted into separate fiats or tenements, provided the houses were erected, or converted, after April, 1919. No question of decontrolling such houses, therefore, arises.

    WORKING-CLASS HOUSES.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he will grant the Return (Housing of the Working Classes) standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division of Lancashire.—[Return showing, for each of the local authorities in, England and Wales for the purposes of Part II of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, the estimated number of houses for the wording classes within. the meaning of the Housing, Town Planning, & c., Act, 1919, in, their district; how Many of these houses have, during the four years ended on the 31st day of December, 1922, been inspected by the local authority with a view to ascertaining what closing orders should be issued or what notices should be served under Section 15 of the Housing, Town Planning, & c., Act, 1909, or Section 28 of the Housing Town. Planning, & c., Act, 1919; the number of closing orders issued during that period by the local authority; the number of such notices served during that period
    494
    by the local authority; how many of those closing orders have been determined on completion of the necessary repairs; how many of such undetermined closing orders have been enforced; in how many cases the requirements of the notices so served have been duly complied with; in how many cases where those requirements have not been duly complied with the local authority have themselves executed the repairs necessary to render the premises in all respects reasonable, fit for human habitation; in how many cases the failure to enforce a notice served under Section 28 of the Rousing, Town Planning, & c., Act, 1919, has been due to the proviso to Sub-section (4) of that Section; in how many cases the failure to enforce a notice served under Section 15 of the Housing, Town. Planning, & c., Act, 1909, has been due to Sub-section. (4) of that Section; and haw!many cases any representation or report of the medical officer of health of the district that a house is unfit or not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, has not been acted upon by the local authority either by the issue of a closing order or by the service of notice under Section 15 of the Hosing, Town Planning, of & Act, 1909, or Section 28 of the Housing, Town Planning, & c., Act, 1919.]
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The information asked for could only be obtained at the cost of much labour and expense which it would not be justifiable to incur or ask local authorities to incur at the present time. A summary has, however, been prepared from the reports of medical officers of health for 1920, covering substantially the points on which the non Member asks for information, and I shall be glad to send him a copy of this together with similar information for 1921 so far as such information is at present available.

    ASKERN COLLIERY, DONCASTER.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary. Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he is aware that the Askern Main Colliery Company, Askeran, near Doncaster, has given notice to some 40 tenants to leave their houses because they have started work at some other colliery; that, in view of the housing shortage, the men cannot find alternative

    495
    accommodation, and now the colliery company are asking the Court for ejectment orders and, seeing that a Government subsidy was granted towards the erection of these houses, what steps will he take to prevent such action?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question as to the right of the colliery company to obtain possession of the houses is one for the decision of the Courts, and the Ministry of Health has no jurisdiction in the matter.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister responsible for this Department consider the advisability of preventing this power being used under the new Housing Bill?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That question will be taken into consideration with regard to the new Housing Bill. I cannot say more at the moment.

    MIDDLE-CLASS HOUSES.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he is aware that a very large number of what are known as middle-class houses are now let to two, three, or four families, and that therefore the decontrol of houses of rents of over £50 per annum will affect the rents of persons in receipt of small incomes; and will he inquire into this matter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the hon. Member is, no doubt, aware, the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, applies to a part of a house which is let as a separate dwelling, and its application is governed by the amount of the standard rent or rateable value of the part and not by that of the whole house. Accordingly, in the case which the hon. Member has put, the consequences which he apprehends would not follow if the parts of the house which are separately let fall within the category of dwelling-houses which continue under control.

    BUILDING SCHEMES (STATISTICS).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, what number of new houses have been completed since 1st January, 1919, up to 15th November, 1922, the
    496
    number completed since 15th November, 1922, and the number in the course of erection or contemplated erection?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Under the State Assisted Housing Schemes 145,771 houses were completed by local authorities and public utility societies up to the 1st November, 1922. Since that date a further 9,263 were completed by 1st February last and 20,966 were either under construction or had not been commenced. In addition, 39,161 houses have been erected by private builders with the aid of the Grant under Section 1 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919. Information as to the number of houses erected outside these schemes is not available.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he can state the number and class of houses erected by utility societies under the various Housing Acts since 1st January, 1919?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 4,545 houses have been authorised in connection with assisted housing schemes of public utility societies, and on the 1st February last 4,115 had been completed. Approximately, half of these houses contain a parlour, living-room and three or four bedrooms, 362 were flats and the remainder non-parlour houses with two, three, or four bedrooms.

    KENNINGTON PARK.
    Mr. HARRISONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he will inquire into the projected demolition of houses acquired by the London County Council for an extension of Kennington Park: and what action he proposes to take in view of the present serious shortage of houses?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Inquiries have been made into the matter to which the hon. Member refers and it is understood that the London County Council have purchased certain dilapidated property with a view to the future extension of Kennington Park, hut it is not proposed to demolish any houses in the near future.

    GAS (LEAKAGES).
    Mr. R. DAVIESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he is aware of the growing feeling of insecurity among consumers of gas for lighting and heating purposes consequent upon dangers arising out of leakages; whether his Department has any information showing the number of complaints received from consumers in this connection; and whether he will make a statement as to the powers of the Ministry and of local authorities on the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that recent occurrences have given rise to some apprehensions, but I have no information as to the numbers of complaints made to gas undertakings by consumers. Neither the Ministry of Health nor the local authorities have any powers which are applicable, but the Board of Trade, as the Department charged with the administration of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, are in consultation with the gas undertakings and local authorities with a view to combined action in the matter. I may draw the attention of the hon. Member to the conclusions of a conference recently convened by the Board, which were printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 19th February; also to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in this House on 21st February; of which I am sending him copies.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES.
    Dr. WATTSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, the total number of insurance committees in England, the total number of members, and the total expense of the meetings, including railway fares, payments to members for loss of time, and for subsistence; and whether, in the interests of economy, he is prepared to consider the advisability of reducing either the number of committees or the number of members of each committee?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There are 128 insurance committees in England with an aggregate membership of 3,130. In 1922 the total expenditure on travelling was £2,005 and the payment for subsistence and loss of remunerative time was £1,658. The National Health Insurance Act, 1921, reduced the minimum membership from 40 to 20 and the maximum from 80 to 40, and the revised limits have not yet been in operation sufficiently long to indicate whether any further reduction in the size of these committees is practicable.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
    Mr. W. A. JENKINSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he can modify the requirements that all domestic servants, particularly in holiday resorts and in houses where only very few visitors are taken during the season, shall pay health insurance contributions; is he aware that in some cases as much as two years' arrears have been demanded; and, as this makes it difficult for employers who employ few servants to secure maids, will he cause instructions for exemption from health insurance to be issued in respect of servants who are casual and who only take employment for a few months in the year?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Domestic servants, whether employed in private houses or in boarding or apartment houses, are required to be insured under the National Health Insurance Acts under the same conditions as other persons who are employed within the meaning of the Acts. It is, however, open to any person who is employed for less than 13 weeks in each of two consecutive contribution years to apply for exemption from the liability to pay the employé's share of the weekly contribution during periods of employment.

    TUBERCULOSIS (TREATMENT).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he can state the number of insured persons suffering from tuberculosis who are now being treated in Poor Law institutions; and, as tilt intention of the National Health Insurance Act was to provide suitable institutional treatment

    499
    other than under the Poor Law, what, if anything, is being done to provide further accommodation?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no precise information as to the number of tuberculous persons now receiving treatment in Poor Law institutions. As regards the second part of the question, the residential accommodation for the treatment of tuberculosis under the schemes of local health authorities in England (which at present comprises upwards of 19,000 beds) has increased during the past two years by approximately 2,350 beds, while some 1,000 additional beds are in course of provision.

    VACCINATION.
    Mr. W. A. JENKINSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether, in view of the opinion of the medical fraternity in favour of vaccination, he will take steps to amend the Vaccination Act so that the power of parent or other person having the custody of a child to make a statutory declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination, as embodied in Section 1 of the Vaccination Act, 1907, shall he abolished?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Withington Division on this subject on the 6th December last. It is not proposed to introduce legislation for the Amendment of thee. Vaccination Acts during the present Session.

    POOR LAW RELIEF, SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether the Report, of the officer of the Ministry who held an inquiry into the administration of Poor Law relief in the Sheffield Union has been received and considered; and when it is proposed that the Report should be published?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This Report has been received and is under consideration. The question of its publication has not yet been decided.

    METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS(AUDITS).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he is aware that great delay has arisen in auditing the accounts of the Metropolitan boroughs for the year ended 31st March, 1922; and whether he can state the reason of such delay, and the number of boroughs the audit of whose accounts for that year have not yet been commenced?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A communication has been received From the Borough Council of Deptford on the subject, and I understand that in this and two other cases the audit for the year in question has not yet been commenced. The delay is mainly due to the fact that sonic of the accounts for preceding years were not ready for the auditor until a late date. I may add that it is anticipated that in the case of all the Metropolitan boroughs, including Deptford, the audits will be completed before the end of next month.

  NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    On this day fortnight, to call attention to the necessity for the codification of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and to, move a Resolution.—[Mr. Sexton.]
    IMPORTED BROKEN GRANITE.
    On this day fortnight, to call attention to the use of imported broken granite in the construction and maintenance of roads, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Lorden.]

    AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE.
    On this day fortnight, to call attention to the question of postal rates for agricultural produce, and to move a Resolntion.—[Major Brown.]
    REPARATION PAYMENTS.
    On this day fortnight, to call attention to the detrimental effect on British commerce of reparation payments made to this country and to countries with which this country has trading relations, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Leach.]

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS(ALTERNATIVE VOTE).
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I beg to move,
  "That leave he given to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to Parliamentary Elections."
  This Bill provides for single member constituencies only, and it thus preserves that personal contact between the constituency and its member which has been advocated so eloquently by opponents of proportional representation. It provides that each voter shall place the numbers 1, 2 and 3, and so on, opposite the names of the candidates in the order of his choice, and in that way it makes each vote effective. Thus if a voter votes for a candidate who cannot win, his vote is not thereby lost, as there is a transfer of the vote to the next candidate of his choice, and he thereby participates in the final election. The Bill also insures that an absolute majority candidate shall be returned in every election. If a candidate cannot win the support of more than half of those who vote he cannot be returned. A similar Bill has been introduced by Lord Beauchamp in another place, and this Bill is on exactly similar lines, with one exception only, and it is this: that whereas Lord Beauchamp's Bill strikes out the bottom candidate, where one of the candidates has not received an absolute majority, and redistributes that candidates votes amongst the remaining candidates, this Bill deals with the candidates by a mathematical formula by which the preferences of each are distributed amongst all alike. Of that mathematical formula Sir Joseph Larmor, who was a Member in 1917–18, and one of the most distinguished mathematicians that ever sat in this House, said:
  "The Schedule of this Amendment "(that was this formula)—" improved in details, has my staunch support."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1917; col. 1679, Vol. 99.]
  The formula is one that any schoolboy can use. The value of it is that it assures the success of the absolute majority candidate, which we all desire and which might have been desired in the recent election at Mitcham. The formula is as follows: If three candidates stand for one seat the returning officer is instructed to multiply the first preference votes by two and the second preference votes by one. [Laughter.] I am glad that hon. Mem-
  502
  bers appreciate the simplicity of it. The returning officer adds these two totals together. Ho then finds the average of the totals for each candidate and rejects every candidate who has not received a greater number than this average. The rejected candidate's votes are distributed amongst the remaining candidates. This is becoming more and more necessary as the parties increase in number and as women candidates are added to the list. I must say a word about the aims of the Bill. The first aim is to give the constituents the widest choice of candidates. It eliminates the caucus and the party and leaves the choice to the constituency. It assures majority rule, but it does no injustice to the minority. It preserves personal contact and responsibility between an individual member and an individual constituency. Each constituency is small and of manageable dimensions both for candidates and members. It cures the present evil, which is minority rule. It promotes confidence in Parliament, because a majority and a majority only secures the representative and sends that representative to Parliament. It fulfils the purpose of democracy of which minority rule is the very negation. It tends to over-emphasise majority representation and to give a working majority. It tends, on the other hand, to under-emphasise, the minority. The minority is allowed to express its views. which is the function of a minority. It is not the function of a minority to rule or to effectively obstruct rule. The majority ought to be strong enough to overpower the minority. The Bill aims at guaranteeing that in every constituency the majority shall rule. and that in Parliament the majority shall rule also.
  Mr. GERALD HURST: I hope that the House will not give any welcome to this proposal, which, with all respect to the. hon. Member, cart clearly be characterised as an absurdity. It combines all the disadvantages of the present system and all the disadvantages of proportional representation, without any of the advantages of either. The hon. Member proposes to subvert what has been one of the most important characteristics of our Constitution for over 600 years. We are slow in making these changes, and it is absurd to make them unless some good ground, something beyond mere mathematical formulæ, is

  503
  adduced in their support. At present our system is that the political faith which commands the greatest adherence in a constituency secures its representative. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is so. No keen Conservative or Labour man or Liberal wants to have an order of preference. He votes for his own man, and he does not care in the least what happens to either of the other parties. If he is keen on Conservatism and on the great causes of stability and economy, he votes for the Conservative candidate. He does not want to give a second or third vote to other parties. If a man believes in that wonderful combination of Mitcham methods with Poplar finance, which has made the Labour party what it is, he votes for Labour. If, on the other hand, he is one of those old-fashioned folks who want to vote Liberal, because the Grand Old Man said this or did not say that in 1880, he will vote Liberal, and he does not care what happens to the Conservative or to the Labour man.
  What the hon. Member is inviting us to do is to abolish this preponderance of belief in political faiths and to substitute the organising of victory by compacts and bargains No one who really believes in his own political creed can tolerate the idea of these bargains. I cannot help thinking that, no doubt quite uncon
  sciously, the hon. Member had in view at the back of his mind, some compact between his party and the Labour party, or, perhaps the prospect of a compact between the Conservative party anti the more enlightened elements of the Liberal party. There is also the possibility of a bargain between the Liberals with long memories and the Liberals with short memories. All these things are in view. If you believe in a definite political creed and want to make that political creed win, you will have no truck with all this log-rolling and wire-putting. I use the expressions "log-rolling" and "wire-pulling" because they are American and they came into being as the natural corollary of the alternative vote and other methods of gerrymandering the constituencies which have been adopted in America. Here in this House, with six centuries of tradition looking down upon us, I ask hon. Members to vote for the system which is simple, which everyone understands, and which has given the House of Commons as we see it this afternoon, and not to fly to evils which we know not of.
  Question put, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Elections."
  The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 208.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Waring, Major Walter

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

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Warne, G. H,

  Millar, J. D.

  Saklatvala, S.

  Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Moreing, Captain Aigernon H.

  Sexton, James

  Webb, Sidney

  Morel, E D.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Weir, L. M.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Westwood, J.

  Muir, John W.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

  Murnin, H.

  Sinclair, Sir A.

  Whiteley, W.

  Murray, R. (Henfrew, Westurn)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Wignall, James

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

  Snell, Harry

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  Snowden, Philip

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th, S)

  Paling, W.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Parker, H. (Hanley)

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Sullivan, J.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Potts, John S.

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

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

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

  Riley, Ben

  Thornton, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ritson, J.

  Tout, W. J.

  Dr. Chapple and Mr. Hope Simpson.

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  Trevelyan, C. P.

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

  Turner, Ben

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Apsley, Lord

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

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

  Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Ednam, Viscount

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Erskine-Boist, Captain C.

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Falle. Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Bennett, Sir T, J. (sevenoaks)

  Formor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Berry, Sir George

  Franagan, W. H.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapliam)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Lloyd-Greame, Ht- Hon. Sir P.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Furness, G. J.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Ganzont, Sir John

  Lorden, John William

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Garland, C. S.

  Lougher, L.

  Brown, Brig,-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Gates, Percy

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

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

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Bruford, R.

  Gibbs. Colonel George Abraham

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Buchanan, G.

  Con, Sir R. Park

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

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Greaves-Lord, Walter.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

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

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Groves, T.

  Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

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

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

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Cairns, John

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H,

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

  Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hal,, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) I

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

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Halstead, Major D.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E, C. (Kent)

  Ormshy-Gore, Hon. William

  Clayton, G. C.

  Harrison, F. C.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Coates, Lt-Col Norman

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Pennefather. De Fonblanque

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Honnessy, Major J. R. G.

  Peto, Basil E.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Phllipson, H. H.

  Cope, Major William

  Hilder. Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Asshuton

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

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Privett, F. J.

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Ralne, W.

  Crooke. J. S. (Deritend)

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

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Hudson, Capt. A.

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

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

  Hughes, Collingwood

  Remnant, Sir James

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Hume, G. H. I

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  ENTERTAINMENT AGENCIES REGISTRATION BILL,
  "to provide for the registration of entertainment agencies, and for purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. BOWERMAN, supported by Mr. Clynes, Mr. John Jones, Captain O'Grady, and Mr. William Thorne; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 16th March, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FEES (INCREASE) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is of a less contentious and less exciting character than that we have just been discussing. It follows, with some modification, the fees provisions which were found in the Economy Bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament. The, provisions of this Bill, like those proposals, are based largely upon the recommendations contained in the Report of the Geddes Committee; either upon specific recommendations for the imposition of fees, or in accordance with the general principle, which was advocated constantly in that Report, of charging the fees to meet either the whole or part of the cost of the particular services. This is to enable the Departments to recover all or part of the cost of different services which they perform and which are set out in this Bill.
  I think it will be convenient if I give to the House a short summary of the provisions contained in the various Clauses for the imposition of the fees. The first three Clauses of the Bill and the Schedules relate to the work of the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade. That is work connected with various inspections of the Mercantile Marine and various services rendered which have been imposed by a succession of Acts of Parliament. I might conveniently summarise them as follow. In the first place, there are surveys—the survey of steamers for passenger certificates, the survey of emigrant ships, the medical examination of steerage passengers on emigrant ships, the measurement of ships for tonnage, the survey of ships for load line; and a number of miscellaneous services and inspections which are imposed by the Merchant Shipping Acts, like the inspection of crow accommodation, inspection of lights and fog signals, of life-saving appliances, and of wireless telegraphy. The next heading of expenditure of that Department is in the work of the Mercantile Marine Offices, the main part of whose
  556
  work consists of the statutory supervision of the engagement and discharge of seamen. There is also the statutory provision for the inspection of ship provisions, and, finally, there is the work of the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen, which includes the Register of ships, the Registration of seamen, verification of service, the issue of masters' and mates' certificates, and various other detailed matters of that kind.
  When the Geddes Committee considered these services, they made a General Report which, in effect, came to this, that the fees which were already charged upon the shipping industry in respect of those services should be increased to a sufficient extent to defray the whole of the cost of the services. They made a recommendation for certain economies in the Mercantile Marine Offices and in one or two other directions, which have been largely carried out. The House would like me to say what will be the cost to the shipping industry. As near as I can estimate it, the cost of these services to-day is something like £420,000. The total amount. which is charged in fees to-day is £92,000. Therefore, to carry out. in its entirety the recommendation of the Geddes Committee, would impose a further charge of something like £328,000 or £330,000 upon the shipping industry. The Government have considered very carefully whether these recommendations should be proposed to the House in their entirety or with a modification. I had discussions with the Chamber of Shipping and the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, and I have gone with them into what exactly the incidence of those charges would be. That is a very reasonable thing to do when you are going to impose charges upon an industry. What the Government has decided to propose to the House is this, that we should not ask the House to sanction the imposition of fees or the increase of fees sufficient to defray the whole of the cost of these services but only to sanction sufficient to defray one-half of the total cost of the services. I would justify that proposal to the House on three grounds. In the first Place, it is, I think, a matter of common knowledge that the shipping industry to-day is going through an exceptionally difficult. period. In the second place, these services—inspection and

  557
  survey and so on—imposed by the Merchant Shipping Acts are not services rendered solely or indeed, I think, principally, for the convenience of the shipowners themselves. They are services or duties which Parliament has imposed in the interests of the community generally, though no doubt they are also of considerable benefit to the shipowner. Therefore I think it is reasonable that, instead of putting the whole cost of these services upon the shipping community, the cost should be borne as half and half.
  I venture to put to the House a third consideration which is also a sound one. If the whole of the cost of the services were to be put exclusively upon the shipping industry, it might be said with some reason that there was then no incentive to economy on the part of the Government, because, after all, they could then appoint whatever staff they thought was necessary. The total amount of the charge for the services would, it is true, appear on the Vote, but it would be entirely set off by Appropriations-in-Aid to whatever amount was sufficient to meet the services for the year, whereas if the expense of the services falls equally upon the industry and upon the Government, there is a full incentive for the Government to make all the economy possible and there is a double incentive—to both the Government and to the shipping industry—to combine in securing the most efficient and most economical service possible. For these three reasons, I ask the House to accept the proposal that the recommendations of the Geddes Committee should be modified to the extent of making this charge a half-and-half charge upon the taxpayer and upon the shipping industry. The effect of that will be that if the cost, as I have estimated, is in the region of £420,000 the shipping industry will pay £210,000 in place of the £92,000 which is paid to-day. The House will see the variations in the fees set out in the Schedule to the Bill, and Clause 3 of the Bill contains a general indication—
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Has the Shipowners' Committee agreed to these proposals?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, and I think that proves they are not unreasonable. [Interruption.] I rather deprecate that interruption. It is only proper
  558
  when you are going to put a considerable cost upon a great industry which is serving the public very well that you should not be precluded from consultation with that industry and from seeing what the effects of the provisions will be upon the industry.
  Sir GODFREY COLLINS: Has the Seamen's and Firemen's Union also been consulted in this matter?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir, because no charge is put upon them. There is, as the House will see in Clause 3 of the Bill, a general provision that the total cost recovered from the industry shall not exceed one half of the estimated cost; of the services of the year. The reason for putting that in and leaving a certain margin in the Schedule is this, that a mere mathematical increase of all fees in order to obtain the contribution of one half might work hardly against one type of shipping as compared with another. Therefore by taking a margin in the Schedule and putting in a provision that the aggregate charge is not to exceed one half, there will be provided an opportunity of imposing fees which will meet the aggregate required with the least possible inconvenience to the shipping community generally. I might to add that as this charge is being put upon the shipping community and as, I am sure, it is the common desire that we should get not only an efficient but an economic service, I have invited the Chamber of Shipping and its associates to appoint a small committee to go into the whole of the services, and the administration and cost of those services, with the Mercantile Marine Department. That is being done in order to see whether any further economy can be made in administration, and also in order to see if there are any services which, though imposed by Statute at this moment, do not really serve any useful purpose and which with due regard to the public safety—that, of course, is the overriding consideration in all these matters—could possibly be done away with or modified. That committee, I am glad to say, has been appointed by the shipping industry and it is already getting to work. These provisions cover the main and greater part of the Bill—that is the provisions dealing with the Mercantile Marine services.
  The remaining Clauses of the Bill provide. for the levying of fees for a

  559
  number of different services performed by various Departments and I shall run through them rapidly. Clause 4 provides for an increase in the fees charged by local authorities for the verification of the apparatus for testing the flash-point of petroleum. That is a duty which they have to perform in order to secure safety in the use of petroleum. Clause 5 provides for an increase in the fees in respect of the registration of business names. A considerable economy has already been made in connection with that Department and, in fact, I think only a very small extra charge will have to be made in respect of this service. The Geddes Committee, as the House will remember, was rather doubtful as to whether that was a service which should be maintained. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thought that was quite an open question. My predecessor consulted various large commercial bodies as to whether the service ought to be maintained. He communicated with the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the London Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries and the National Union of Manufacturers, and they all replied that they thought it performed very useful service, and that in the interests of the manufacturers and traders of the country, it was a provision which should he maintained. I, therefore, propose, in view of all these circumstances, to maintain that service and to ask the House to sanction the small increase in charges which is necessary to make it self-supporting. Clause 6 enables the Board of Trade to make a charge to local authorities for the verification of local standards of weights and measures. The charge to local authorities is something very small. It works out at probably not more than or £6 or £7 a year. While the charge is very small, they will have the advantage, in future, of having their weights and measures compared on the spot instead of sending them long distances up to London. Clause 7 deals with a small and very non-contentious matter. It enables the Home Office to charge a fee where persons want to remove a body after burial. That is purely a matter of private advantage and convenience, and it is proposed to charge a small fee of 2 guineas and to enable a fee to be paid to the officer of the local authority who attends.
  Mr. FOOT: How many bodies are removed every year, and what amount is likely to be derived?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am told this will bring in about £600 a year, and I was rather surprised at the amount. Clause 8 empowers various Departments to charge fees for work which is done at the headquarters of the Department in London, for which, when it is done abroad by consuls, a fee is charged—work such as the authentication and legislation of documents and so on. That, again, is work done entirely for the convenience of private persons and a foe is charged for it at the consular offices. When the work is done by the Foreign Office or Home Office here, there should be a fee in order to meet it. Clause 9 enables the British Museum, with the approval of the Treasury, to make a charge for admission to the museum, and that also covers the Natural History Museum. It so happens that, whereas nearly every other museum and gallery in the country is entitled to charge fees, there is a statutory bar which prevents the British Museum or the Natural History Museum from charging fees. I daresay the House will remember that this matter came before the Geddes Committee and was dealt with by them at some length. It was pointed out that expenses had gone up, and it was represented to the Committee that it was very desirable, if possible, that the Government grant should not be reduced. In order to enable these grants to be carried on and the money to be found from some other source, the Geddes Committee recommended that in, I think, the case of all museums and galleries there should be a charge for admission on four days of the week. That bad already been done by the National Gallery, by the London Museum, by the Victoria and Albert Museum and by the National Museum of Scotland—no doubt, a precedent, we ought to follow—and the Committee recommended that the practice should be made universal. This proposal is estimated to bring in £6,000 a year to the British Museum and £3,500 to the Natural History Museum. I would point out to the House it is not a proposal to charge on every day of the week, but only a proposal to charge on four days of the week. That would enable Saturdays and Sundays and public holidays—on which

  561
  there is an influx of people into the museums—to be free days. I understand it is also proposed that students who wish to go to these museums for special purposes may be admitted free on any day.
  Mr. HARRIS: Does this proposal in-chide the Bethnal Green Museum?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sorry I cannot say at the moment. I will make inquiry, and when my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade replies, he will refer to the matter.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Can we have a guarantee that these museums will be open free on Saturdays?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, that, I understand, is absolutely intended, and that is what is done in the case of all galleries which are charging a fee. They are open free on Saturdays and Sundays. The only other Clause in the Bill is Clause 10, which gives a general power to the various Departments to charge a fee, limited to five guineas, for the services of an officer holding or attending an inquiry, in cases where the Act says the costs of the inquiry are to be payable by the local authority or some other person. At present there is a variety of fees under different Acts, local government, municipal, transport, health, and so on. Sometimes it is specially provided that a fee is to be recoverable, sometimes it is limited to three guineas and sometimes there is no limit, and this is a general proposal that where the costs of an inquiry are chargeable upon a local authority or upon some other person, a fee limited to five guineas shall be charged. That follows what, I understand, has been the general practice recently in all modern local Acts, and I think those who are acquainted with the work of Private Bill Committees will bear me out when I say that that is put in as a common form Clause now into those local Acts. We propose by this Clause that that provision should be made universal.
  Mr. HARRIS: Will that fee go to the Department or to the officer who conducts the inquiry?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It will go to the Department. It will be an appropriation-in-aid, the office: having a regular salary, except, I suppose, where somebody was brought in specially by the Depart-
  562
  meat, where the fee, if he were paid by the Department, would find its way to him. I have tried to give the House a comprehensive and, I hope, an accurate summary of the provisions of this Bill, which carries out, I venture to think, in a practical way both the specific recommendations and the general principles of the Geddes Report.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: On what basis would the fees be charged at the British Museum?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think they would amount to 6d.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: On four days a week?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I must express some surprise that additional taxation should be placed on the shipping industry, at one of the darkest moments, as the President of the Board of Trade himself acknowledged, in the fortunes of that trade. However, that is a matter that I will leave to be discussed by others who are better acquainted with the subject than I am. I base my opposition to this Bill on Clause 9. I do not think there ever really was a more inconsiderate proposal made than that which is contained in that Clause, and I will put to my right hon. Friend a very searching question. Has he ever gone, not as a mere visitor, but for professional reasons, into the Library of the British Museum? I do not suppose he ever has. His flowery path of life did not compel him to follow the thorny path of those who write for a living, but if he were acquainted, as I am, by personal and painful experience, with the Library of the British Museum, he would see, as I hold, that a more cruel and a more preposterous proposal was never made than to put a tax on the people who frequent the library of the British Museum. Of course, the most distinguished writers have gone there, but these are the exceptions. The ordinary visitor to the library of the British Museum is a very hard working and a very "hard up" man or woman of letters. I have not been there for many years myself, though a considerable period of my youth was passed in it, but anybody who. knows the ordinary population of the reading room of the British Museum will

  563
  know that it is frequented, not by the successful, but by the extremely unsuccessful, members of the literary profession.
  I do not want to say anything disrespectful to a worthy class because they happen to be poor, but to a large extent many of those daily frequenters of the library of the British Museum could fairly be described as almost the flotsam and jetsam of the literary profession. The reading room of the British Museum is to some of them almost their chief living room, to some of them their restaurant, because, not having the price of their lunch at a restaurant, they very often bring their poor little packet of food into the Museum, and many of them use it as a dormitory, which is not unnatural when you are reading books that are not always interesting. That is the kind of people who go to the British Museum regularly. There is practically a professional class of readers in the British Museum, men doing research work for books and newspapers, carrying on what is technically called "ghosting" work for other authors with more attractive names and larger remuneration. Many of them have been going to the Museum almost every day of their lives, from their youth up to their doddering old age, and now it is proposed to put a tax on these poorest of the poor almost, because after all, with all due respect. to men who work with their hands, they very often get far better and more regular remuneration than these more or less hack workers in hack literature.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman stated that the fee is to be 6d. That may make all the difference, to many of these poor people, between having a lunch and not having a lunch, and I am sure my right hon. Friend, when he comes to reconsider this question, will not press for this charge. The exception he mentioned is almost as bad as the rule, for what are the days excepted? Saturday and Sunday. Saturday is a short day anyhow, and I do not think the British Museum library is open on Sunday. Therefore, it is no good to them to be free to go on Sunday, whilst Saturday is more or less dies non to all classes except those employed by Sunday newspapers. I am tempted to make an observation about Sunday newspapers, but I had better not, as I am a member of the newspaper profession myself. The class for whom I am speaking are a class that have not many
  564
  people to speak for them. Their occupation is most precarious, and to inflict upon this worthy though poor class of people a fee for admission, which sounds very little perhaps to Members of this House, but which may mean all the difference to them between a day without food and a day with food, is a very cruel proposal.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: I sympathise to a certain extent with what has been said by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor). I know there is a very poor class of men who are searching in the British Museum, to whom 6d. a day would be a very difficult thing to pay. But there are two points on another subject in regard to which I should like to question the Minister in charge of this Bill. The first is: Can provision be made in this Bill to put a tax on foreign commercial travellers who visit this country, in the same way as our commercial travellers are taxed in foreign countries? Our commercial travellers have a great grievance, in this respect. Our men going abroad have to pay very heavy fees and taxes, while foreign commercial travellers coming here pay, I believe, almost nothing at all, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take this matter into consideration and put in a Clause which will enable our commercial travellers to be on an equality with foreign commercial travellers who come into this country.
  The second point I would like to ask is somewhat similar, and that is whether the fees levied by our consuls on foreign merchants abroad can be put on an equality with the fees levied by foreign consuls on our merchants in this country. Our consular fees levied abroad are very much less than those levied by foreign consuls in this country, and I see no reason why there should not be perfect equality in this matter. I have heard it stated that we cannot do this on account of the Mast-Favoured-Nation Clause in our Treaties. I put a question the other clay on that very subject, and the reply I got was that the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in our Treaties was all gain and that we had no loss: but I have given the right hon. Gentleman two instances in which that Clause in our Treaties is a distinct loss to us. I would therefore ask the right hon. Member to put this matter right in the Bill.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In reply to what was said by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor), I have ascertained that if there is any person who uses the library of the British Museum regularly, all he would have to do under the regulations which are, I believe, in contemplation, would be to write to the Director of the Museum, saying that he wishes to use the library regularly, and then he would have a free pass in the same way as students.
  Sir G. COLLINS: The President of the Board of Trade has cleared up one point in connection with Clause 9, but I think he might explain to the House what fee will be charged to the public to gain admission to the British Museum, as I think there is a little doubt in the minds of hon. Members after his explanation. Do the Trustees of the British Museum and the Natural History Museum intend to increase the fees to the ordinary public when they desire to enter these two Museums? If so, it is surely a retrograde measure to impose a tax or put any impediment in the way of the free access of the public to these two treasure houses. In the City of Glasgow, my native city, the Corporation have not increased the fees of the picture galleries and the other amenities in that city. Surely it is rather a backward step that to-day, in the City of London, the public desiring access to these two places, should have to pay increased fees. I hope the President will keep an open mind, whether at this stage of the Bill or at a later stage, when an Amendment will be moved to delete Clause 9 from the Bill. The President in his opening statement gave three reasons why the Government are introducing this Bill this afternoon, more especially the Clauses referring to the Mercantile Marine Branch of the Board of Trade. I would like to ask him, when these charges were originally fixed in connection with the Marine Branch of the Board of Trade, whether the charges were so fixed that no burden would fall upon the Department, or, in other words, upon the shoulders of the public? I welcome the transfer of the burden from the shoulders of the public on to 'the shoulders of the shipowner, but why should the public to-day be asked to pay £210,000 for the working of the Mercantile Marine Branch of the Board of Trade? There may be a very good reason, if these charges were
  566
  originally so fixed that the charges in 1898 and onwards were intended to fall on the shoulders of the public. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may be able to give us some information on that matter.
  During the right hon. Gentleman's opening statement I asked him whether the Seamen and Firemen's Union had been consulted, and he stated that the Seamen and Firemen's Union had not been consulted, because the seamen would not have any extra charges under the Bill. Let me direct his attention to what, I believe, is a small matter, but a matter which is of some consequence. Whenever a seaman is engaged, or whenever he is discharged in future, a fee of 6d. must be paid. is this really necessary? Will it not have the effect, in some degree, of depressing the wages of seamen when joining ships for a short time on the coastal trades of this country? Every time they are engaged this fee must be paid. Every time they are discharged, this fee must also be paid. Is it really necessary, in the interests of the shipowners or of the seamen themselves, that this charge should be made, which is bound to have the effect in time of depressing the wages of the seamen? I hope he will give us some information on that point.
  Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  I do not intend to deal with the question which has been raised by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, and which has also been referred to by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I want to confine myself to the main provisions of this Bill—those referring to increased fees about to be imposed on the shipowners for services which come within the jurisdiction of the Mercantile Marine. I am bound to say, in the first place, that a Bill such as this, one which is of an omnibus character and deals with matters which have no relation to each other, is not at all satisfactory, and ought not to have been submitted in this fashion at all. We have had a reference from hon. Members already with regard to the British Museum, and now we are to have an incursion into the affairs of the Mercantile Marine, and, possibly, later in the Debate, a dead body will be

  567
  drawn across the path, arising from an inquiry which may come within the scope of Clause 10. That I regard as a most unsatisfactory method of submitting Bills to this House, and, in any event, the provisions which relate to the Mercantile Marine are of so vital a character, that they might very well have been introduced in a short amending Bill, instead of a Bill of this character. I will go further, and contest the validity and propriety of certain references in Clause 2, Sub-section (4), which propose to repeal Sections which are contained in the Act of 1894. You are asking here for an increase in fees, but, in my judgment, you are not entitled to ask at the same time for the repeal of a Section of the Act which has no relation whatever to the question of fees. At all events, that is my opinion, and I will take care to submit Amendments in Committee with regard to that particular provision. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made some reference to the charges about to be imposed. It is, perhaps, matter for comment—to put it mildly—that hon. Gentlemen should discuss matters of which they have very little knowledge. Certainly, that reference should be made to the imposition of fees which are to be borne by seamen, when, as a matter of fact, the proposal is that they should be borne by the shipowner, shows a lack of knowledge, and, to say the least of it, is disconcerting. However, that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman himself.
  I submit that no justification has been made by the President of the Board of Trade for the acceptance of this Bill by the House. He attempted to justify the partial increase of fees by making reference to the undoubted depression of the shipping industry, and to the fact that the services were not solely intended for the shipowners, but, to some extent, were serving the interests of the community. That is not a justification for an increase of fees, but rather for an alteration in the incidence, taking the burden completely off the back of the shipowner, and imposing the charge on the community entirely. I for once find myself in entire agreement with the shipowners in the desire to remove burdens from the industry, which are certainly embarrassing at the present time, and I must confess
  568
  to amazement at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this is a non-contentious Measure. I have been regaling myself by perusing some of the shipping papers, in the course of which I have read reports of speeches which have been delivered by very eminent shipowners in the country, one of whom is an hon. Member of this House. Perhaps I might remove any doubt in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman as to the controversy in the shipping industry with regard to this matter if I quoted one or two extracts from speeches which have been made. The other day at the meeting of the Glasgow Shipbrokers' Association, the chairman, Mr. Wm. Henderson, one of the joint managers of the Anchor Line, a gentleman for whose views, particularly with regard to shipping, we must pay due regard, made some very caustic references to the proposals which are contained in this Bill. He said:
  "There are sinister signs also that the Government are pondering the advisability of very heavily increasing some other charges with regard to the surveys and inspection of steamers. The charges proposed are so preposterous "—
  a remark which was received with loud applause from the surrounding ship-owners—
  "that one can hardly credit that sane men could think of levying such charges on an already overburdened industry at this critical time. Should such an attempt be made further to throttle shipping enterprise, our reply to the Government "—
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take notice of this—
  "if I may adopt the virile language of the late Lord Fisher, will be, Peace and tranquillity be damned!"
  That is not the language of a seaman or a seaman's representative, or of a Member of the Labour party. It is the language of a shipowner, who has been supporting the policy of this Government, but who says that if you propose to proceed with the provisions of this Bill, then "Peace and tranquillity be damned!" That opens up a very good prospect for the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. That is not all. There is the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn), who is very well known in the shipping world, and is perhaps one of the most efficient men in the shipping industry, one who is regarded, I should think, by shipowners as being the mouthpiece of the

  569
  shipping industry in this House, and I am quite sure that he efficiently represents that industry, What did he say at the same convention?
  "It would fall to him to say something about this Bill."
  I am perhaps anticipating what the hon. Member will say this afternoon on the subject., but, perhaps, he will excuse me for taking this liberty. He said:
  "It would have fallen to him to have opposed it in its original form, but, although he would have done his best, the fight would have been an absolutely hopeless one in a House of Commons that had no sympathy whatever for the shipowner win was supposed to have fed fat off the country during its time of trouble."
  He proceeded to discuss the Geddes Report and its recommendations, out of which this Bill has arisen, according to the right hon. Genfleman who introduced the Bill. Then he said:
  "Therefore he was glad that the settlement which they were now offered was to be accepted. Half a loaf was better than no bread."
  Those are the opinions of shipowners, and they passionately, indignantly, resent the proposals in this Bill. He said they were prepared to accept a compromise. We are entitled to learn from the right hon. Gentleman what was the nature of this compromise. There must have been a quid pro quo. What is the concession granted to the shipowners in return for their acceptance of the provisions of this Bill? May I put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman? He spoke about the setting up of an Advisory Committee is that Advisory Committee to be consulted not only with regard to the imposition of fees, but with regard to the regularity of inspections which are involved? Obviously—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins)—that if there is to be consultation, then much wider interests must be consulted, since the whole question is not only for shipowners or seamen, or the Board of Trade, but for the community. With regard to that I would say this, Reference has been made to a particular trade union organisation which the hon. Member for Greenock said might he taken into consultation, and I would say this to the House, that there are other organisations just as capable of conferring advice, and they are as much entitled to consideration at the hands of the Board of Trade as the organisation to which the
  570
  hon. Member for Greenock referred. That will be impressed on the right hon. Gentleman every time I rise to speak in this House on shipping questions and in other ways. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are they?"] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know, there is a union known as the Amalgamated Marine Workers' Union—a union which has as honourable traditions behind it as the organisation to which the hon. Member for Greenock referred. At all events, it represents a body of seafaring opinion entitled to be taken into consideration similarly with other organisations. I have no objection to the wider consideration or representation, but if the matter is to be arranged as suggested it must include all sections of the seafaring community.
  5.0 P.m.
  I come to a question which, in my judgment, is vital to the mercantile marine provisions of the Bill. I suspect—I hope I am not imputing dishonourable motives for I should hardly be justified in such a course—that the concessions are, to some extent, of a nature which will remove the inspection which is at present operating so far as the services are concerned, the inspection of food and stores, in regard to life-saving appliances and wireless telegraphic installations. I would point this out further, that Section 206 of the Act of 1894 lays it down that there must be an obligatory inspection of ships which travel certain routes, and it is proposed in Clause 2 (4) of the present Bill to repeal that Section, thus removing the obligation on the Board of Trade to conduct an inspection into the food and stores provided for the seamen. I desire to read the Section, because it is rather important—at all events important to the seamen. Section 206 of the Act of 1894 says:
  "In the case of ships trading or going from any port of the United Kingdom through the Suez Canal or round the Cape of Good Hope, or Cape Horn, the barrels of beef and pork, the preserved meat and vegetables in tins, and the casks of flour or biscuits, intended for the use of the crew of any such ship shall be inspected by such officer and in such a manner as the Rules under this Section direct ‥‥"
  That is a compulsory inspection intended in the interests of seamen. It is well-known, and I think, perhaps, the shipowners on the other side of the House will agree with me, that in the ships that are

  571
  going through the Suez Canal and round the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn, ships that are going long voyages, it is essential that preserved food should be inspected before the ship leaves the port of engagement, and so far as the seamen are concerned, so as to ensure that the foodstuffs are in such a condition as not to cause disease and suffering to the men concerned. That is reasonable. Why in this Bill it should be proposed to repeal such an important Section of the 1894 Act I cannot understand. If this be one of the concessions granted to the shipowners in return for their acceptance of this Bill, on behalf of the seamen of this country I am determined to oppose this repeal and will certainly raise the matter in Committee.
  I want now to say something on a question which affects not the seamen, though I am not sure that they are not almost as much involved, but one which concerns the community itself. It is proposed in this Bill to charge fees for the inspection of life-saving appliances. Could anything he more absurd? It is proposed to charge fees for the inspection of wireless telegraphic installations. I suggest that is preposterous! Why are these things put on board? Wireless telegraphy is being installed on passenger liners and tramp steamers for the purpose of protecting the men, the crew in the latter case, and the passengers in the case of the liners, yet it is proposed that the shipowner should be mulcted in a charge which should be undoubtedly placed on the State. It is the duty of the State to protect the lives of the passengers, and though the shipowners certainly has some duty and responsibility in the matter, surely they ought not to be subject to a charge of this kind. It ought not to be imposed on them at all. Let me take the analogy of the mines of this country, or the railways, or Agriculture. If the Minister of Aviculture submitted a Bill which said that the inspection of milk supplies and cattle, in order to trace whether or not disease existed, should be borne by the farmer there would be an outcry on the part of the farmers which would probably disturb the equanimity of the Government. Yet here the Government come along and propose this increase of fees—not modified fees—for duties which should properly be carried by the State which ought not to be a
  572
  burden on industry. Similarly, if the Secretary for Mines should propose that the inspection of mines should be a charge upon the mine-owners, there would be an outcry. Similarly with the railways. So I submit that if the principle which it is intended to apply, that is the principle of the imposition of fees for certain services, is not applied in the case of the mines, the railways, and agriculture, it ought not to be applied in the case of the shipping industry: in other words I submit to this House that the duty and responsibility or providing and maintaining life-saving appliances on board passenger liners and tramp steamers, the responsibility of installing wireless, of inspecting the crew's supplies, for engaging and discharging the seamen, should be a charge imposed not on the ship-owner or the industry; it is one for the taxpayer. There is a body of opinion in the country associated with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) who wish to remove the charges at present put upon the taxpayer and place them on to the shoulders of those concerned in industry. That seems at first sight to be an excellent principle, but once you attempt to apply it you will find yourself in a considerable difficulty.
  I just want to say one word more in regard to a matter which arises from the proposed new charges, and which will bear hardly on some seamen. I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the First Schedule, Part 1, where he will see that it is intended to increase the fee payable for the granting of certificates of service for the A.B. rating. What does that mean? It means that a seaman who has served for three years as an ordinary seaman and goes up for his discharge must pay a fee to the Board of Trade before he receives that document. There is no industry in the country where a similar condition of things prevails. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to remove from the Bill the proposal imposing a charge on the A.B. for a document which is imposed upon him by the Regulations of the Board of Trade, and which he can very well do without. The ship-owner himself, as I suppose, is not particularly concerned about giving discharge hooks to the seaman, or documents of this kind; at all events, he does not do it unless for certain

  573
  purposes which he is not prepared to disclose. Certainly, if the Board of Trade lay down a Regulation that an able-bodied seaman must have a discharge certificate, the Board of Trade should supply that discharge certificate without imposing any fee at all. As a matter of fact that was done until within the past ten years or so. There is a good deal that might be said upon the whole matter, but I want to summarise my observations.
  If it was intended to amend the Merchant Shipping Act then a separate amending Bill ought to have been introduced into the House. You cannot discuss a variety of subjects in the course of this Debate with any satisfaction to those who are participants with that clarity which is desirable. A lecture was given to us the other night by a legal gentleman in this House, who suggested that there ought to be much more clarity in regard to the provisions outlined in particular Bills. If you have this kind of Bill dealing with merchant shipping and a variety of other subjects it is impossible clearly to apprehend the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Acts and all their ramifications, and I would ask that, if a Bill is to be submitted at all, it should be submitted in a form which should enable us sooner or later to consolidate the Merchant Shipping Acts as they should be consolidated.
  Secondly, I submit that the principle of State responsibility must be accepted by the Board of Trade. Shipowners may have accepted the situation for the time being for reasons best known to themselves and hardly referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but the community has an interest in this matter at large. Those interests ought to weigh with the Board of Trade even more than the interests of the shipping industry of this country. Lastly, if an Advisory Committee has been set up, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, then all the interests concerned must be included in the membership of that Advisory Committee. These are not questions which affect only shipowners. When such are under review, we have no right to come in and interfere, that is, with the matters which are primarily the concern of the shipowner himself. But when questions of a wider character are introduced, or under review, then seamen and seamen's representatives, the Board of Trade, and the ship-
  574
  owners must consult in the interests of all parties and in the interests of the general community. In moving the rejection of this Bill, if subsequent events do not turn out as I would hope on the Division, I reserve to myself the right to submit very drastic Amendments in Committee.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.
  My hon. Friend who has just sat down has devoted a good deal of attention to the Merchant Shipping Clauses of the Bill. I do not think I need trouble the House at all in drawing attention further to these points, and I, therefore, propose to invite the attention of hon. Members for a few moments to a discussion of Clause 9, the Clause which refers to the power of trustees of the British Museum to make regulations imposing charges for admission. The Minister in charge of the Bill—quite rightly—recalled to the memory of the House that we had a very interesting discussion on this subject last year, and that the provisions of this Bill arose from these proposals of the Geddes Committee. I want to join with hon. Friends who have already spoken in protesting against the attitude of the Government in attempting to carry through a reactionary proposal such as this in regard to the British Museum. The economy which the Government hope to effect is something like £6,000. The Minister in charge admitted that point in his opening statement, but I think he overlooked making this further admission, that the economy already effected upon the British Museum in 1921–22 amounted to £69,000 or 18·3 per cent. We on this side of the House take objection to this particular Clause because, rightly or wrongly, we feel it is a vicious principle to return to the habit of artificially excluding members of the public from free access to libraries and national museums.
  I have taken the trouble to look up the Report presented to this House by the Trustees of the National History Museum as regards the number of visitors who used this particular institution in the year 1918. The Report is dated 1st April, 1920. I find that in 1918 no less than 422,805 people passed through the National History Museum, and in 1919 that figure had increased to the substantial number of 455,736, illustrating the point that quite obviously there is

  575
  a very deep and increasing interest on the part of the general public in the exhibits at the National History Museum. There are further figures which are quite interesting to know. The average number of attendance on Sundays in 1919was1,090 and the average for all the other days of the week amounted to 1,286. Roughly there is substantially very little difference between the attendance on Sundays and weekdays. There were 12,236 people attended the demonstrations in the year 1919 of the official guides in that Museum, and I submit that if this proposal is passed it will vitally affect the degree of interest which the public will be able to show in the exhibits of that institution.
  I want to put another point. I suppose everybody here is fully familiar with the very remarkable discoveries now taking place in Egypt. Obviously those discoveries must stimulate interest in antiquarian and archœological discoveries. If this kind of proposal is going to be allowed to pass, that very natural interest in achievements and civilisation of the past will be arrested thereby. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill how far this Measure has the unanimous approval of the members of the Government. I would like to know, does it represent the view of the UnderSecretary of State for the Colonies? Last year we had a very entertaining speech from the hon. Member, and, indeed, it was one with which I am in the most complete agreement. It dealt with this very subject, and I would like to remind the hon. Member of some of his previous declarations upon this subject. Discussing this very Clause, or a similar one, last year, and speaking without the responsibilities of office, the hon. Member said:
  "It is the most penny wise and pound foolish Clause which has ever been introduced. I do not believe that the Trustees of the British Museum want it in the least, and it will only lead to great inconvenience."
  The same hon. Member further said:
  "I believe von would lose the ten or twelve research students you have got in the Natural History Museum and the British Museum coming from quite humble homes, very often from the elementary schools, if for the first time you impose a charge which would bring in practically nothing, a mere bagatelle of a few odd hundreds a year, and which I believe would do infinite harm to the cause of science and art."
  576
  I wonder whether my hon. Friend's interest and love for science and art will carry him to the degree of voting against the Government on this occasion. It is a sort of economy which is not worth making and it is absolutely trilling. Becoming very daring, the same hon. Member made this hold declaration:
  "If I can get on the Grand Committee I shall move the deletion of that Clause, or try at any rate to amend it out of all knowledge, and prevent the Treasury getting control of our museums."
  I shall be very happy indeed to escort my hon. Friend on this occasion into the "No" Lobby. I have an interest in this Bill on another ground. Most of my time before I came to this House was devoted to trying to encourage and stimulate, amongst the young scholars of elementary schools, an interest in education generally. I understand that this particular institution in London is very much used by elementary school students, as well as by teachers, and if hon. Members care to look at the report published by the British Museum Trustees, which will be found in the Library of the House, they will observe what a large number of organisations were escorted over this building during the period of the War, and subsequent to the War, by the authorities of that place. I want to make a protest in most emphatic terms against this attempt which is being made to strike at one of the most useful of our social services. Education, like every other section of social service at this moment, is passing through times of very great difficulty. We have already been told by the Minister in charge of this Measure that private merchants in the shipping trade find themselves hard pressed, but I leave those hon. Members who are interested to speak upon that point. I know that education authorities are finding things very hard as well, and I very strenuously object to a very reactionary proposal such as this, which will have the effect of closing this institution on many days of the week to a large number of people who want to use their time profitably, instead of wasting it in the public streets of London.
  A concession has been suggested in reply to what has been said by the hon. Member for Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). We are grateful for that concession, but it doe

  577
  not go far enough. It is not enough to meet the demands of those who are in the habit of using the library attached to the British Museum and their demands only. Upon what ground is any section of the public, whether they are habitual users or not, called upon to pay any kind of charge while some are allowed to go in free? I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the effect of this proposal will be to deter a large number of potential students from making use of this establishment, and I would urge the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to withdraw this particular Clause, in the best and highest interests of the community as well as for the purpose of enabling those interested in the achievements of the past to avail themselves of whatever means they have in that building to understand the civilisation, the achievements and, if you like, the accomplishments of those who have lived in darker and less prosperous days.
  Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: I wish to allude to some observations which were made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell). He made an extremely interesting speech with a great deal of which I entirely agree, but he made a certain suggestion which, to my own knowledge, is entirely without foundation. I had the privilege of being present at all the interviews between the President of the Board of Trade and members of the shipping industry in connection with this Bill. The position we were in w as that we had up against us the definite recommendation of the Geddes Committee, which we considered was entirely mistaken, but which the President of the Board of Trade felt it his duty to carry out. That recommendation would have placed the entire cost of all these services upon the shipping industry. We approached the right hon. Gentleman and said: "You are proposing to do to the shipping industry something which you are not proposing for any other industry; for example, do you propose to saddle agriculture with the entire cost of the network of inspection which is applied to agriculture; do you propose to saddle the owners of factories with the cost of the network of inspectors for factories? "
  The President of the Board of Trade after listening to us gave us no favourable eply, but he made certain representations
  578
  to the Government, end this Bill in the form in which it appears is the result of hose representations. On this matter I want to be perfectly frank with the right hon. Gentleman and the House. What was the position? We were faced with a Government which commands a majority in this House, and which was acting on the definite recommendations of the Geddes Report which would place upon the shipping industry a most unfair and onerous burden. In these circumstances we agreed to a compromise by which, roughly speaking, the fees which are payable in the shipping industry are doubled. I think the position will be readily understood by Members of the House. I regret that the hon. Member for Linlithgow appeared to suggest that there was something of an insidious character behind a perfectly simple transaction. I only rose to assure him that so far from any word having been passed as to any quid pro quo whatever nothing of the kind could have taken place. In connection with the point about food which he has raised I may inform the hon. Member that in the last Parliament it was proposed by the Board of Trade to do away altogether with the inspection of food, but so far from wanting it whittled down my bon. Friends and myself, as well as those who speak on behalf of the shipping industry, expressed a desire that for the sake of both the sailorman and the decent shipowner the inspection of food should continue. With regard to everything which makes for real efficiency there was no undertaking of any kind given or suggested, either by us or by the President of the Board of Trade. With regard to other matters, it will be obvious to my hon. Friend and to the House that if anything of that kind had been suggested nothing could have been done behind the backs of Parliament, for all these inspections and surveys are statutory and any alteration that was proposed would have had to run the gauntlet of criticism in this House. I hope my hon. Friend will accept the statement from me that there was absolutely nothing in the shape of a quid pro quo suggested, and that we found ourselves simply in the unfortunate position of having to acquiesce in the choice of the lesser of two evils.
  Sir W. RAEBURN: I am glad my hon. Friend who has just spoken has disposed

  579
  of one of the points with which I rose to deal—the point as to the suggested quid pro quo. There was nothing of the kind, and I join with my lion. Friend in giving that assurance. All these surveys and other duties of the Board of Trade are bound to be carried out by them, and it is ridiculous to suggest that there is any bargain that will prevent the Board from carrying out any and every statutory obligation. It is almost the first time in my experience that a Member on the other bench has anticipated all my arguments and agreed with them. Reference has been made to a speech I delivered the other night in Glasgow. Allowances are generally made for after-dinner speeches.
  Mr. SHINWELL: I said nothing about that.
  Sir W. RAEBURN: What I said in that speech was that when we first heard that the Board of Trade were going to impose on shipowners the burden for all the services of the Marine Department, not in the interests of shipowners, but in the interests of the community, we naturally were alarmed. But as there were two influential shipowners—Lord Inchcape and Lord Maclay—on the Geddes Committee, and that Committee recommended the transference from the Board of Trade to the shipowners of the expenses of the Department, we felt we were helpless, and that we had to make a compromise, and that half a loaf was surely better than no bread. We all know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is out for economy in every Department, and I for one did not wonder that the Board of Trade and the Treasury were on the look-out for victims. But we did think it very unfair that they should attempt to do in regard to shipping what has not been attempted to be done in any other Department, either in agriculture or in connection with factories, or mining, or railways. We have always been willing, as far as it was in our power, to pay a fair price for the services which are performed on board our ships at our request. But we are called upon to pay not only for the surveys we ask for but one-half the cost of the other surveys. The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir Godfrey Collins) need have no fear that because we are called upon to pay a fee of 1s. 6d. on the engagement and discharge of seamen we shall there-
  580
  fore seek to depress the, wages of the men. This question of wages is dealt with by a National Maritime Board on which are to be found representatives of officers, seamen, firemen, cooks and stewards, and it is not the least likely that for a paltry sum of is. 6d. we are going to try to depress wages. As to this Advisory Committee, by whatever name it may be called, I think it is a right thing. There ought to be some sort of committee. In the Geddes Report the first point dealt with was the effecting of economy, but it is really no economy simply to shift the whole charge from the Department or the State to the shipowner. If it were all to fall on the shipowner there would he no inducement to the Board of Trade to cut down expenses. Indeed, it might become an exceedingly popular method of finding jobs for people. I do not know of any shipowner who is in favour of thorough efficiency wh objects to a legitimate survey. But there are one or two grievances which we feel, and which probably an Advisory Committee could look into. Very often we are troubled by officious surveyors coming on board a ship as soon as she arrives and making a survey before the owner has had an opportunity of finding out what, is necessary to be, done, and it is unfair to charge us for that The Advisory Committee would probably look into that Nothing is to be done that will impair the safety of seamen; nothing is to he done against their interests, and those who have a suspicion that the shipowners and the Board of Trade have sought some kind of arrangement which may be to the detriment of the men, are quite wrong in that suspicion. We have every desire for efficient supervision by the Board of Trade. With regard to the examination of foodstuffs, we think it is a right thing to do. Very often trouble is caused by sea lawyers on board ship who, when they reach port, go to the Consul and complain about the rottenness of the provisions. It is something to be able to say that the stores have been inspected by a Government official, and that the presumption is therefore that they are good.
  Mr. SHINWELL: But is it not proposed, in the Section to which I referred, to repeal the original Clause regarding that?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): No.
  Sir W. RAEBURN: We are quite opposed to the repeal of this particular provision. I understand it is a compulsory inspection for which the shipowner has to pay. It was not the Board of Trade, nor the Geddes Committee, nor even the men's unions who urged this inspection but the shipowners' representatives in this House and we expressed our willingness to pay all the costs of such inspection. It gives a fairly good guarantee to the mariner that the food on board the ship is good, and at the same time it is some protection to the shipowner against reports that he is not doing the proper thing by his crew in the matter of provisions. The Board of Trade were bound to carry out wholly or in part the recommendations of the Geddes Committee which investigated this question, and although some of my shipowning friends who are not conversant with all that has taken place may not thank me and those who are acting with me for supporting the Government, I am convinced when they do know all they will see that a reasonable arrangement has been made and that we are justified in the course we are taking this evening.
  Mr. PATRICK HASTINGS: There is one point I want to touch upon, and as to which I hope my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will help us. I frequently have to consider these matters, and at times I am met with the comment that no one seems to have endeavoured to get the Bill made quite clear before it is passed into an Act. I am satisfied that a good many hon. Members behind me are anxious on this point. Looking at Clause 2, Sub-section (2) what I wane to know, and what many others want to know is, is it the intention that the fee which is there specified as payable both upon the engagement and discharge of a seaman, is to be paid by the shipowner or by the seaman? I have heard it said it is to be paid by the shipowner, but that is certainly not made clear, because if one reads the Sub-section it will be observed that it only applies to cases under Section 115, Sub-section (2), of the Act of 1894. It is just that sort of case which leads to endless confusion if and when a Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
  582
  If my right hon. Friend will turn up Sections 114 and 115 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, he will see that the agreement in question has to be signed, first of all, by the master of the ship. That is under Section 114.
  It only goes before the superintendent under Section 115, and that is for the purpose, and for the purpose only, of its being signed by the seaman. Therefore, it is quite clear, under Sections 114 and 115 of the Act of 1894, that the master signs otherwise than in the presence of the superintendent, but the seaman is obliged to sign, both his engagement and his discharge, before the superintendent. The master is not, and the only fee payable is for the signature effected in the presence of the superintendent. Anyone would at once be in a position to argue, as from that, that this is a fee payable by no one else but the seaman. lt is all very well to say, as was said by the hon. Member who spoke last, that it. is very unlikely that shippers or shipowners would decrease the wages of the seamen in order to get hack the 1s. 6d.; but that is not the point. It is not a question at all, in my view, as to what in fact would be done. If it is the intention of the Government that, under Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, the payment is to he a payment by the shipowner, at least that ought to he explained quite clearly. If one reads Sections 114 and 115, it is perfectly obvious that, on a true view of those Sections, it is payable primâ facie by the seaman, and not by the master of the ship or the shipowner.
  It really is a very serious matter, in my view, because my right hon. Friend has now stated that this is a payment to be made—and I take his statement to mean that it is intended to be made—by the shipowner; but the Bill as at present drafted shows an entirely contrary meaning, and I am satisfied that, if it ever came to be discussed in Court, that would he the reading. If the Bill were passed in its present form, and the learned Judge had to look back to Sections 114 and 115, it would be clearly thought that the intention of the House, in passing this Measure, was that the fee should be paid by the seaman and not by the shipowner. I strongly suggest the desirability of putting in some words to show that the intention is that it should be paid by the shipowner. A similar

  583
  point arises in Sub-section (1) of the same Clause. Paragraph (b) deals with the certificate of service in pursuance of Section 99 of the Act of 1894, and the fee that is to be paid is now scheduled at £1. From Section 99 one sees who it is that gets that certificate. Persons who have attained certain ranks in His Majesty's Indian Marine Service or in the Navy are entitled to a certificate of service, and presumably they are the persons who are to pay the £1; but is that intended? Is it intended that the person who desires the certificate is to pay? I understand my right hon. Friend to indicate that it is, but it certainly would appear, from Section 99, that he would not be obliged to pay, because from that Section it is quite clear that he is entitled as of right to the certificate, and, therefore, it could clearly be argued that he would not be the person who would have to pay.
  In Sub-section (2) it is quite clearly indicated, in accordance with Sections 114 and 115 of the Act of 1894, that the document is to be signed by the seaman, and the seaman only. before the superintendent. The President of the Board of Trade says that the direct contrary of that is the intention of the Government. I only rise to point these things out, because anyone who notices them and does not point them out is very properly commented upon at a later date. It is said, "You were present when this was discussed, and no one pointed it out." If I went into Court with this present Bill in the form of an Act, I should feel in a very grave difficulty if I tried to argue under it that this 1s. 6d. was paid by the shipowner and not by the seaman, and if I had to admit that I was present during the discussion and had not raised the question whether that was clearly intended. To me, and I think to almost everyone else in the House, it appears to be the direct contrary, and if it had not been for what the President said I should have been prepared to assume that that was so.
  Sir W. RAEBURN: The hon. and learned Member has mistaken what I said. I was answering a remark made by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), to the effect that, if the shipowner paid these fees, there would be
  584
  a tendency to depress rates of wages, because that would be taken into account. That is all that I said.
  Mr. HASTINGS: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I did not quite appreciate that fact.
  Mr. ADAMS: I support the rejection of this Bill on two cardinal grounds. The first is that it embodies within it a proposed tax upon knowledge, for a tax or charge for admissions to our museums unquestionably bears that construction. In these days, when education is to be made wider and freer and more distributed, this charge for admission to our museums must be looked upon by all educationalists as a reactionary step. The portion of the Bill, however, to which I would specially direct the attention of the House is that which has reference to the shipping clauses. We may safely leave to the larger shipowners the question whether this is or is not an opportuune time at which to place further burdens upon that industry. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) has very properly pointed out that shipowners have never, at any period of their history, had larger banking overdrafts. There never was a period when it was more difficult, owing to low freight markets, to run ships at a profit. In our ports to-day there are 1,000,000 deadweight tons of British shipping lying unused. It is true to affirm that an increased financial burden on the industry is bound to have, perhaps to a limited degree, some reflection upon the unemployed market. The greater the burden, the less possibility there must be of vessels being placed in a position to earn freights. But, while the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill stated that there was no intention of repealing the obligatory Clauses as to the inspection of provisions, the matter appears to be perfectly clear, for Clause 2 makes it quite definite that it shall not be obligatory for such an inspection to be made. The Clause says
  "and Sub-section (3) of the same Section shall be repealed—"
  that is to say, that Section 206 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and Section 26 of the Act of 1906, having reference to the inspection of provisions, shall be repealed. This is an exceedingly

  585
  dangerous proposition. It is inevitable that it will lead to the abolition of inspection. No longer will the provisions supplied to our merchant marine bear, as a guarantee; of quality, the seals of the Board of Trade guaranteeing not only this, but the dates upon which such goods were packed. The difficulties of the ship-owning community will undoubtedly be increased, and the disability of the seafarer is bound to be augmented. I am entirely at a loss to understand the Government's proposal to move in this reactionary direction. We are told that the Chamber of Shipping has had no hand in any such proposition. I certainly know that at a meeting of North of England shipowners, at which I was present, great resentment was expressed, much to their credit, that this proposition should be made by the Board of Trade.
  Viscount WOLMER: If I may interrupt the hon. Member for a moment, I can assure him that he has misread this Clause, which I agree is rather misleading at first sight. That is not the proposal of the Government. If I have an opportunity of speaking later, I will explain that that is not the proposal of the Government, and will not have the effect suggested.
  Mr. ADAMS: Can we have the explanation now?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): On the Second Reading only one speech is allowed.
  Mr. ADAMS: I hope we are about to have such an explanation as will remove the confusion which exists in the minds, not only of shipowners, but of seafarers also. It is exceedingly important that that confusion should be removed. We have heard that the Chamber of Shipping is representative of shipping opinion in this country, but that is a misapprehension. There are great bodies of shipowners who do not take the ipse dixit of the Chamber of Shipping as final. As an illustration of that, I might point out that, although the Government scheme for the disposal of German so-called reparation tonnage met with the approval of the. Chamber of Shipping, it was resented most strongly and bitterly by large bodies
  586
  of shipowners in this country. To embrace within one Act such a diversity of subjects as are embraced in this Bill is bound to destroy the control of the House of Commons over legislation, because we shall have sections of the House strongly opposed to portions of the Bill, while, on account of the number of subjects embraced in it, favour other portions. In that way the effect of criticism in the House of such a Measure is reduced to a minimum. Unless I have the assurances for which I have asked, I shall certainly oppose the passage of the Measure.
  Mr. FOOT: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), speaking just now, expressed regret and surprise that this Bill should include so many different subjects. I think his surprise would have been immeasurable had lie had the experience that some of us in the last House had of seeing the introduction of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which included, not merely the several items here included, ranging from the registration of business names to the transfer of corpses from one part of the country to another, but also very substantial policies on matters relating to education and other questions, This is a very much smaller Bill. I quite agree that it is not possible, although I think that is unfortunate, to introduce separate Bills dealing with each of these separate matters; but I suppose that would take up too much of the time of the Government.
  6.0 P.M.
  I should like to make one reference to the Registration of Business Names Act. The right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Second Reading, said that he had been in communication with certain business authorities in this country, and had asked their opinion as to whether the continuance of that Act was necessary in the interests of trade. I should be glad if he, or the other Minister who will reply, will tell us whether, in communicating with those authorities, it was pointed out to them that it was intended to increase the registration fees from 5s. to £1, as is here stated. I can quite understand that they would not raise very much objection if the smaller and almost nominal fee was allowed to stand, but now it is proposed to multiply that fee and make it £1. That will mean, in very many instances, an altogether

  587
  unnecessary burden. Hon. Members will recollect that when the Registration of Business Names Bill was being discussed, it was at a time when we were very sensitive about aliens, when there was a sort of alien hunt throughout the country, and a desire was manifested everywhere to ascertain whether a man who was carrying on business in this country was an Englishman or not. I know from my own knowledge that it means a very considerable harassing to trade. It is harassing to small firms. It means that practically every firm which does not in its ordinary business title set out all the names of the partners concerned, must stamp every one of its documents with perhaps three, four or five names, a trouble which it is unnecessary to go to in the interests of commerce. At any rate, it means a burden and a tax upon these several firms, and I shall be glad if we can be informed why the Government did not act in this respect upon the recommendation of the Geddes Committee, which suggested that the burden which was imposed had no corresponding advantages as far as industry was concerned.
  My main objection to the Bill is because of Clause 9. I find myself in thorough agreement with all that has been said by those who have opposed the Bill upon this ground. I do not know that I should be justified in voting against the Second Reading simply because of Clause 9, but T regard it as a most reactionary proposal. It is not a trifling suggestion. It does not mean that a small number of people are affected. I have had put into my hands an answer given to-day by the First Commissioner of Works in which he gives the total number of admissions to the British Museum in 1922. The answer is that the total figures for admission are on weekdays 918,351 and on Sundays 60,943. In other words, there are nearly a million people, most of whom may be affected by the proposal contained in Clause 9. I had conviction brought to my mind some months ago when the Under-Secretary for the Colonies spoke from the Second Bench and denounced in unmeasured terms this trifling proposal. His argument, with which I found myself in complete agreement, was that it would not
  588
  only affect the students who go to the British Museum, but potential students—that there were a good number who came into the Museum and by reason of their visit might be attracted to one study or another. Surely it is our business to encourage the people to use their own property. The British Museum is maintained by the taxes of the people. A large number of these million visitors conic from the country. It is often the experience that people who come to London make a round and visit certain places. A day is spent at the British Museum and a day at the Tower of London and so on. They have the privilege of contributing all their lives towards the maintenance of the British Museum. Why should not they on occasions be able to see freely their own property? Instead of putting any hindrance in the way, there ought to be every encouragement given. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading that there was a statutory bar against imposing any fees. Does not that show that our fathers were wiser than our present governors? When they established the British Museum and incurred the heavy initial expenditure they said. "This property shall be free to all our people," and in order to ensure that the property should be made free they actually, in a Statute passed at that time, made that, as they thought, certain for posterity. Now, when we are priding ourselves upon our progress in education and think we are a very much more advanced people than they were, we actually propose to go back upon their suggestion and strike out the very salutary Clause on which they insisted. I hope this rather shabby proposal may be removed in Committee and that we may have some assurance on this stage that this reactionary proposal will not he insisted upon. I do not think it will reflect credit on our generation that we should allow any such proposal as this to pass without making a very strong protest. It is true we are in financial straits, but we are a great nation and a rich people and, with all our straits, we have not found it necessary, surely, to make a provision which shall impose, in many cases upon those who have not long pockets, this altogether unnecessary burden. Unless, therefore, some assurance can be given as to Clause 9, and some explanation as to the Clause dealing with

  589
  the Registration of Business Names Act, I shall certainly join with the hon. Member for Linlithgow if he takes a Division.
  Mr. AMMON: I make no apology for referring again to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), that is Subsection (4) of Clause 2, because as there is a general misreading, according to what we have had from the Front Bench, it is well that we should be clear in regard to it. I turn to page 256 of the Merchant Shipping Act and I gather that the inspecting officer may, at certain times, proceed on board ship and examine things and the Board of Trade may make certain tides. Those rules, I suppose, will have the effect more or less of an order which will become obligatory. When we turn to the Bill as printed, one cannot get away from the very definite language which says:
  "But it shall not be obligatory that such an inspection should be made."
  And accordingly it seems that some very drastic alteration will need to be made before it will be quite clear that this inspection is obligatory, as undoubtedly there is a qualification that makes it quite optional.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies must be, indeed, flattered that everyone seems to have gone to the Library to turn up the speech he made on the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions), Bill It is not everyone's speech that so impresses itself on hon. Members' memories as his seems to have done on that occasion, and one may hope that, although he has now reached the Government Bench—and we congratulate him—he will not depart from his opinion when it comes to a vote. He raised a point which I want again to refer to in connect ion with Clause 9. I speak as a member of a London Education Committee, and in consultation with the directors of education I can say that they view this proposal with very considerable alarm. It imposes a considerable inroad on the educational curriculum as laid down for the children attending our elementary schools. There has grown up during the past few years a very excellent practice known as school visits to museums and other public buildings, whereby numbers of children are taken with their teachers, make a tour of the building and have lectures on the exhibits.
  590
  It seems to me that this is going to have the effect of keeping these children out, or at least that there is going to be a very limited number of days, which will require the whole of the arrangements in the school calendar to be altered and will probably lead to very considerable difficulties if they all have to concentrate on a particular museum on one or two days in a week. I assume in this is included South Kensington and the Natural History Museum, as was the case in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill when this proposal was made some time since. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he can drop Clause 9. It is not going to bring in any very considerable amount of revenue. It is going to have a very derogatory effect so far as the education of the children is concerned, and it is going to check the growth of future students who have been accustomed in their young days to attend these museums to get used to study and so forth. The recent excavations at. Luxor have certainly given an impetus to visits to museums and to study on these particular lines, and it would be disastrous if for the sake of a few paltry shillings we did anything that would damp down that enthusiasm. The directors of our elementary education in London fear that the whole of the children are going practically to be excluded or that it will he made very difficult for them to visit the museums. They come in the main part from comparatively poor homes where they will not be able to raise the money and where, to be quite frank, many of the parents are not seized with the importance, from an educational point of view, of visiting the museums and are not likely to provide the money from their limited resources. The Clause has occasioned a good deal of disturbance in the minds of many outside, and I have heard only to-day from the Chief Inspector of the schools in London that they view this as a very serious attack on the education of the children, which will result in nothing from a financial point of view, but will cause a very serious set-back in educational efficiency and in the intellectual training of our children.
  Mr. EMLYN-JONES: The occasions on which I have found myself supporting the Government since I became a Member of the House have been very few, but as

  591
  a shipowner myself, and one on whom certain burdens will fall, I am glad to be able to support the Bill. We as shipowners can certainly not be accused of looking after our own selfish interests. The very fact that the rejection of the Bill has been moved by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, among other reasons, because of the increased burden which is going to be placed on the shipping community, is sufficient evidence to show that we are not primarily looking after the interests of shipowners. We are able to take a long view, and the fact that the net result of the Bill upon the shipping industry is that it will involve us in an additional expenditure of £118,000 per annum is an indication that we as citizens can take a long view of the situation and that we are willing, so far as we are able, to make a substantial contribution towards effecting a necessary economy. This will- be a joint burden which will be shared by the Government and the shipping community, and we are hoping by that co-operation that we shall be able to introduce some economics into the working of the system. An hon. Member on the Front bench objected that certain sailors and firemen's unions had not been consulted. As an employer, I am always very happy to have the co-operation of any section of workmen who may be concerned, but I do not think it can be said by any stretch of the imagination that this is a proposal upon which it would have been convenient to consult any section of the sailors or firemen or any other branch of the workers. I shall be on very safe ground in saying that the harmony that exists between the shipowners and the men who are employed upon their steamers is certainly very great. I think I may say quite safely that no shipowner will seek to take advantage of this Bill when it becomes an Act. Although it will throw an extra burden upon the shipowners, there is no member of the shipping community who will attempt to pass on that burden to the men employed on his steamers, because we want to maintain a decent standard of living on our boats, and a decent standard of wages, as we have endeavoured to do during the difficult years through which the shipping industry has passed.
  It can never be said that the shipowners have been the pampered pets of
  592
  the Board of Trade. Objection has been taken to Sub-section (4) of Clause 2. It is not the desire of any shipowner that the examination of food supplies on board ships should be curtailed. This Bill still gives the Board of Trade power in this matter. It only means the substitution of the words "may certify" for the words "shall certify." [HON. MEMBERS: "All the difference!"] It is not any real difference, because, knowing the Board of Trade as I have done for many years, I am sure that they will not relax the inspection of food supplies, and they will see to it that they exercise all the power that is necessary to protect the men. There are certain objections which one could raise, more particularly to that part of the Bill which win impose a fee upon those who go to the British Museum. I hope that in Committee something may be done to do away with that injustice. In the main, speaking as a shipowner, although I had no share in the negotiations which took place between the Board of Trade and Chamber of Shipping, I very heartily support the Second Reading.
  Mr. WEBB: The remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down may be reassuring from one point of view, namely, that all the respectable shipowners have no wish to get rid of the inspection referred to, but I could not help being alarmed by the reference that he made to the inspection being, in form, entirely optional on the part, of the Board of Trade. In the next sentence he referred to the negotiations which have taken place between the shipowners and the Board of Trade. I do not want to be unduly suspicious, but when Subsection (4) says that
  "it; shall not be obligatory that such inspection should be made,"
  it seems to me that the whole purpose is to enable the Board of Trade to reduce the number of inspections to such an extent that the increased charges will not amount, on the whole, to any increased aggregate charge upon the shipowner. Perhaps there is nothing in that suspicion, but surely it would be better, when the House has been assured by the shipowners present to-day that they do not wish these inspections to be given up, and that they have no wish that the inspection should be reduced in number, that the President of the Board of Trade should undertake

  593
  to make it clear that the Board of Trade does not intend that these inspections should be given up, that it has no intention to suggest that the number of inspections should be reduced, and that if we, in our innocence, are unable to understand the words
  "it shall not be obligatory that such an inspection should be inado—"
  surely some other form of words could be found. I understand that the intention of the Board of Trade is that there should be no change in the law in this respect. At present the inspection is obligatory If it is to continue to be obligatory, if there is to be no relaxation in the law, and no relaxation in the practice, why, then, should we be misled by enacting in the Bill the words
  "it shall not be obligatory that such an inspection should be made,"
  I am unskilled in the use of the English language, but when Parliament is asked to declare that
  "it shall not be obligatory that such an inspection should be made,"
  I cannot help thinking that there must be a meaning attached to those words. Surely, when it says that "it shall not be obligatory," it must mean that it shall no longer be obligatory. If that is so, we must trust to the Board of Trade to ensure that there shall be inspection. If it is not to be obligatory in the future, it must mean that the Board of Trade are to have more discretion. Although I feel inclined to trust the Board of Trade at the present time, who knows who will be at the Board of Trade a few years hence? The Department may then be administered not on quite the honourable standards expressed by the shipowners. The very object for which these powers of inspection are given is not to tax the honourable shipowners. I assume that these powers are given because there are some shipowners who are supposed not to he acting up to the standard. We have increased in morality, honesty and virtue, and we are going on increasing, but I cannot be so optimistic as to suppose that in no period with which we need to be concerned there will be shipowners who would wish to escape inspection, and that there will be no need for any inspection. The House would do wisely either to reject the Bill—and I propose to vote against it—or, at any rate, the House ought seriously in Com-
  594
  mittee to take care to amend the Bill. We ought to put our heads together, and, with our knowledge of the English language and our capacity to express our meanings clearly, make Sub-section (4) appear to the person of ordinary intelligence what it is really meant to be.
  I come to Clause 9. The House has not heard enough about that, and neither the House or the Government will have heard enough of it if the Government persists in going on with it. This is one of those proposed changes which will excite an amount of resentment and an amount of indignation quite out of proportion to the magnitude of the change itself, and enormously disproportionate to the amount of money which the Government will get out of this proposal. I feel very seriously about this matter because I am a Londoner, and I have been brought up outside the British Museum, and have occasionally been inside. One hon. Member referred to the fact that those citizens of the British Commonwealth who do not live in London have the privilege of helping to pay for the British Museum, and they have a grievance if on the days when they are fortunate enough to visit London it will be a matter of chance whether they can go into the British Museum without having to pay a fee. For the moment, I am concerned about London. I have been a London boy without any pence in my pocket with which to pay fees. We are all of us too much in the habit of thinking that it is only a matter of a tax, only a matter of a few pence, and that while a tax of a few pence may be objectionable it is, after all, only a question of paying a few pence.
  I would remind hon. Members that there are very many people, especially children, to whom it is not a question of paying a few pence, but a question of absolute prohibition. There was a time in my boyhood when I had not the pence, and it was not a question of paying a tax but a question of exclusion from any place which was guarded by a fee. We ought to have imagination enough to realise that in regard to hundreds of thousands of children and adolescents growing up this demand for what we call a small fee means in 99 cases out of 100 the closing of the door. I remember with some pleasure hearing the remark of an intelligent policeman, who was asked by a little boy outside the British Museum:

  595
  " May I go in?" and the policeman, who was of exceptional highly developed political intelligence, saying, "Certainly, it belongs to you. Go in." Henceforth, that policeman will not be able to say to that boy, "It belongs to you; go in." He will have to say, "You can go in if you have upon you the price of the fee, and you are able to spare it for that purpose."
  It is not merely a matter for amusement or instruction. I have been concerned in the administration of education in London, and whoa I was responsible very largely for the introduction of technical instruction into London, nothing struck me more than going one day to the British Museum and seeing a youth of 14 of 15 years kneeling down before one of the cases containing an extraordinarily beautiful specimen of an ornament, and drawing that ornament, I assume as a guide to himself as a designer at some future time. That is the object for which we maintain the Museum to a very large extent, and I suggest that we, are stultifying ourselves and not acting in an economical way, if we spend tens of thousands, of pounds in maintaining the Museum every year arid then we limit the use of the Museum, on which we have spent these tens of thousands of pounds, by imposing a barrier upon the people who use it for the purpose for which we profess to maintain it.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reassure the House in regard to this Clause, and that he will either withdraw it now or in Committee seriously consider whether it cannot be omitted. I warn him that he will not improve matters very much by exempting the holders of readers' tickets. He will not really improve matters very much by saying that the trustees will not charge fees on Sundays, or on Saturdays, or in the evenings, or will not charge fees here and there. You cannot by limitations of that sort prevent this imposition of a fee being virtually prohibitive on a large number of people. Consider the students in the various institutions of the University of London. Consider those in the science faculty. When I was making some effort to study natural science I found it necessary to visit the Natural History Museum, and I got there far more instruction than at the professor's lectures. I learned such geology as I know mainly by studying at
  596
  the museum. On the one hand, to give a large endowment for the University of London to enable them to carry on instruction, and on the other hand to impose a barrier on students who are going there, not occasionally but perpetually, and in such a way as to get the greatest possible benefit from their University studies, is futile. Take the Royal School of Mines. That school surely serves a tremendously useful purpose for the whole commonwealth of nations. It provides skilled mining engineers for South Africa and Australia, as well as this country. The mining students are in and out of the museum constantly. Are we going to make a special exemption for the students of the University of London, or any of its constituent colleges? If so, we shall have to extend it to the students of all the other universities in the Kingdom.
  There is no economy in this proposal. It is only a tax. There is no saving to the community in the proposal. There is nothing in it that will make the community pay its way earlier; nothing that will restore the balance between production and consumption, nothing that will enlarge the margin between production and consumption. The whole thing is a mere fiscal transaction, by which you impose a charge upon the citizen in order that the Treasury may get a little more revenue. The result of that depends upon what the charge is. A large number of Members of this House are more interested in the reduction of Income Tax and Super-tax than in the question of these small fees. The matter is, however, of great importance to the community. To impose this charge is to offend against the principles of political economy. You are not taxing according to ability to pay if every penny you got in this way you are going to devote to the reduction of Income Tax and Super-tax. It means that you have passed from the principle of taxation in proportion to ability to pay to the principle of a depressive tax, which will fall more heavily on people with small incomes than on people with larger incomes, which is contrary to all the orthodox principles of economy, and it is rather a shame that it, should be left to the Labour Members on this occasion to teach political economy to the Government Front Bench.
  Major BURNIE: The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill, said that

  597
  it was going to set up, under Clause 3, an Advisory Committee to decide what the fees under the Clause should be. Reference was made to masters' and mates' certificate fees. Is it suggested, under this Clause, that the fees for sitting for masters' and mates' certificates shall be increased in any way? It is difficult for me to understand this. Clause 3 says:
  "The amount of the fees to be charged under the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1921, as amended by this Act shall ho so fixed that the amount estimated by the Board of Trade to be produced thereby in any year shall not exceed one-half of the amount certified by the Board of Trade to he the aggregate estimated cost in that year of the administration of the services in respect of which the fees are payable."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that £92,000 was the amount received before and that he proposed to increase the fee so as to raise the total of £210,000. If the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) will answer my question on this point at once I will not carry on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on"] If the Noble Lord will say "no" at once, I shall not continue.
  Viscount WOLMER: I will answer the hon. Member later.
  Major BURNIE: It appears to me that they are taking these powers, and I would like to know, when the Noble Lord replies, is this Advisory Committee going to be comprised solely of shipowners, or are the masters and mates of the Mercantile Marine going to be represented on this Committee, because if these fees are going to be raised in any way these men should be represented on the Committee and have some voice in saying what the fees will be? I come from a maritime constituency, and my constituency includes masters and mates who are scattered far and wide over the seven seas, who have practically no votes at the General Election, for they are very seldom at home, and who have no chance of saying anything in reference to any legislation which may affect them in any way. I do appeal to the House to support me in seeing that these men get justice. When are they to pay these fees? They are junior officers when they sit for these certificates. They have had a very short service at sea. They have not been able to save any great amount of money. They come home from a voyage and have to sit for a Board of Trade certificate.
  598
  The first thing that happens is that they are paid off from their employment. Shipping companies naturally do not pay them while they are sitting for their certificates. This is a large monetary loss in itself. Then they have got to pay some instructor to instruct them so that they may pass their examination, which naturally is a very severe one.
  Very properly, the Board of Trade and shipowners insist on a very high standard of competence being attained by these men. Unfortunately, the same high standard does not apply to their wages, which are fixed by the law of supply and demand. We have these men sailing the high seas, day in and day out, on duty at all hours, weekday and Sunday alike in many cases with their duties four hours on and four hours off, with very little time at sea to study. We hear very little of these men except at a time when we read of a case like that of the "Titanic." When a ship like the "Titanic" goes down, we say that these men are heroes and the salt of the earth. During the War the great sea patrols were manned almost exclusively by men of our Mercantile Marine. In my constituency i lost several of my friends in the Dover Patrol. Are we going to treat these men, when the wages have fallen in accordance with economic laws, so badly as to increase their fees by a Clause like this which does not say directly that the fees are going up. It is a scandalous shame when we treat in such a way the men who have rendered such great service to the country in the past.
  Mr. WIGNALL: I was deeply interested in and well pleased with the speech of the hon. Member who spoke as a shipowner, and pleased to hear his statement as to the improved conditions aboard ship and the improved relationship that exists between shipowners and the seafaring men. I hope that they may long continue so, but it was not always thus. I am old enough to remember some of the bitter fights of the past. I remember the hard struggle to improve the conditions on board ship, and the hard fights about the diet of skilly, and I am astounded that there should be any attempt now to relax the stringent regulations which were imposed in the bad days behind us as a result of the bitter struggles of the past. I am

  599
  astonished that there should be even the possibility of an attempt to go back on some of the good work that has been done. The dietary scale on board ship is greatly improved towards what it was It was not only a question of the quantity of food but there was also the important question of the quality of the food that was provided, and though I am willing to admit that if there were no regulations of any kind the majority of the shipowners to-day would keep up the very high standard that has been attained, that if there were no inspectors they would be sufficiently interested in the men who served them to see that they were well fed and fed on the best of foodstuffs, yet unfortunately the history of the past has shown that there will always be a certain section who will take advantage of every opportunity that presents itself to reduce cost if it can be done, and it will take a lot of persuading from the Treasury Bench or anywhere else to convince me that in Sub-section 4 of Clause 3 there is no intention of relaxing the stringent regulations that exist to-day.
  We have heard of the difference between "may" and "shall" many a time. Some of us, in the work on which we have been engaged, have often sat in Courts of Law and heard the judge declare that the word "may" means that it is optional, that a man can do a thing if he likes, and very often we have been ruled out on that word "may." But where the word is "shall" there is no squeezing out of it. It is definite. The thing has got to be done. It shall be done. In the Regulations under the Act at present in existence the words are very clear. "Shall be inspected." Then if the word "may" is substituted it will make all the difference. I am not a professor of languages, but I have gathered from the school of experience the essential difference that exists, from any standpoint you like, and more particularly from the leaders' standpoint, between the words "may" and "shall" in an Act of Parliament. One is compulsory and the other is voluntary, and we cannot countenance voluntary actions in matters that concern the life and well-being of the men who travel the great trackless ocean. These Regulations came into existence because of the scandalous conditions that did exist, and it was bemuse of these conditions that agitation
  600
  was commenced, and the men who have been referred to by the hon. Member as working in harmony with the owners to-day were, I remember, sent to prison, and had to serve heavy sentences because they took part in these agitations which brought about the improved conditions that exist in the shipping industry to-day. The result of their work will be destroyed if this Bill is allowed to go through in its present form, and however clever the President of the Board of Trade or the Noble Lord may be, they cannot alter the meaning of the English language, and they cannot alter the fact that "shall" is compulsory and "may" is voluntary. For that reason alone I shall stoutly oppose the Bill in its present form. Of course, I know what it all means, the Geddes Report and its "too many inspectors, get a few less on the unemployed list, and a little more saving to the Department," but if that is to be done at the cost of the lives and well-being of our brave and noble seamen it is false economy and cannot be allowed. Do not let us go back to the old days of the rotten food supplied to our sailors, or give a possible chance for it to be done. I trust that, if the Bill passes its Second Reading, when it goes to Committee the Noble Lord will take steps to secure an alteration in this Section so as to safeguard that which we have fought for and won and are anxious to maintain in the interests of the seafaring community.
  Viscount WOLMER: I think that the Government have no reason to complain on the whole of the reception with which this Bill has been greeted from the interests that are principally concerned. Of course, the imposition of new fees is never a pleasant task to any Department or to any Government. We all realise that such an action is not likely to bring credit, or kudos or popularity, and therefore I think my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade expected, at any rate, as many kicks as halfpence from this Bill. I think the Board of Trade has every reason to be grateful to those hon. Members representing the shipping industry for the way in which they have received this Bill, and I think the Government have every reason to be grateful to the shipping industry for the way in which they have met us in the matter. We did not wish to put increased burdens

  601
  on the shipping industry, especially at this time, but we had before us the Report of the Geddes Committee, and I think that every hon. Member in the House will agree that it is the desire of the nation as a whole that the main recommendations of that Committee Should be carried out. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Sidney Webb) says this is not a measure of economy because you are merely engaged in a bookkeeping transaction, you are putting the charge from off the shoulders of the taxpayers on to the shoulders of certain individuals. Yes, that is undoubtedly perfectly correct, but I suggest that notwithstanding it is a measure of economy and for the very cogent reason that, if we allow all these great services to be borne at national expense, at the expense of the taxpayer, there is not that incentive to economy among the various interests concerned that there will be if we ask those interests to make their contribution also towards the upkeep of those services. I think we have already had an example of that over this Bill. We have the example of the shipping industry. We were told by the Geddes Committee to impose charges that would cover the cost of the services after certain economics had been made. The Board of Trade have already made very great economies in the mercantile marine Service, and the other cervices touched on in this Bill, but our friends in the shipping industry are not satisfied that those economies have gone as far as they might, and now that they are called on to make such a large contribution towards the cost of these services, they insist, and I think rightly, that they should have every opportunity of investigating the expenditure in order to see that none of their money is being wasted. Therefore, although the hon. Member for Seaham may say that this is merely a bookkeeping transaction, it is a transaction which I think very much increases the incentive to economy, and therefore is a real measure of economy and will ultimately have that effect.
  I think I ought first to deal with one matter which has received perhaps more criticism than any other. It is the proposal in regard to the British Museum and the Natural History Museum. I cannot pretend that the amount of money involved in this Clause is in any way comparable to the amount of money involved
  602
  in the rest of the Bill. It is the comparatively small sum of £10,000, but I would ask the House to remember that you cannot make economies without either cutting down expenditure or increasing charges. Those are your only two alternatives, and at this moment the Government is faced, as any Government would he faced, with the necessity of cutting down national expenditure in every possible direction. The Treasury has to serape and pare in every Department, it has to scrutinise and examine every Estimate, as it were, with a miscroscope, and hon. Members opposite really cannot have it both ways. Do they want the services of our great museums restricted: that is to say, do they want the Treasury grants to those museums reduced, or are they willing that those who can afford to make a small contribution towards the upkeep of the museums should be given an opportunity to do so? This proposal has been resisted by hon. Members opposite in language which, I think, is a little exaggerated. My right hon. Friend, in introducing the Bill, I think, fully explained what was proposed. It was proposed that on four days in the week a sum of 6d. should be charged for admission, that there should be no charge for admission on Sundays to the Natural History Museum at Kensington, and no charge on Saturdays or on Bank Holidays, that all students should be admitted free—[HON. MEMBERS: "Students?"]—all students should be admitted free, and that every possible step should be taken to prevent the poor being deprived of that source of knowledge. The hon. Member for Durham drew a very heart-rending picture of a small boy who wanted to go into the British Museum. My only reply is that if he wanted to go in on a Sunday—though I believe, as a matter of fact, he is not allowed to do so on Sunday because it is closed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]well, then, if he wanted to go in on a Sunday, it is free.
  Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: How is "student" defined?
  Viscount WOLMER: I cannot answer that offhand, but I will certainly look into the matter, to see that the definition is made as wide and genuine as possible. Therefore, I would ask hon. Members simply to consider it from that point of view—do you want economy at all?

  603
  Sometimes I confess I doubt it, because whenever a proposal for economy is brought forward by the Government it is opposed from certain quarters of this House, and sometimes we begin to doubt whether some of our friends really do see the necessity for economy at all. If you are to economise, is it to be done by cutting clown the Exchequer grants to the British Museum, or by charging a fee on certain days so that a considerable sum like this £10,000 may be obtained?
  Mr. FOOT: We were told £3,000 in the first instance.
  Viscount WOLMER: £3,500 for the British Museum, and £6,000 for the Natural History Museum.
  Mr. FOOT: It was £3,000 in the one case, and £2,500 in the other.
  Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. If ho will read the speech of my right hon. Friend, he will see that he gave both these figures in his opening remarks. That is the dilemma with which the Government is necessarily faced, and while we do not desire to put difficulties in the way of the poor visiting these museums, so far as can be helped, the Government is anxious to avail itself of every possible means of support for maintaining the services of the museums. In that connection, I would remind the House that the charge of a small fee in the case of the National Gallery, of the Wallace Collection, and other museums and art galleries, has been extremely successful. It has not been found to reduce the number of visitors, and has brought in a really appreciable contribution towards the upkeep of the institution.
  7.0 P.M.
  Now I must turn to the other part of the Bill in regard to the inspection of ships' provisions which I venture to say has been the subject of a good deal of misunderstanding from hon. Members opposite. I am not entitled to make any complaint on that matter because I fully admit that the language of this Section is misleading, but I think I can explain to hon. Members why it comes to be put in that way. The situation is this. Under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 it was made compulsory for the Board of
  604
  Trade to inspect certain provisions on certain ships that were undertaking certain voyages. Under the Act of 1906 the Board of Trade was given power to inspect provisions on all ships undertaking all voyages, but it was not made compulsory on the Board of Trade to do so. The Board of Trade has never been anxious, and is not anxious at the present moment, to reduce in any way the inspection of the provisions on ships, but the Geddes Committee recommended that this inspection should cease, and therefore when the Economy Bill, which was introduced by the late Government last year, was before the House it contained a Clause abolishing this inspection of ships' provisions. That Clause was never favoured by the Board of Trade, and when the Economy Bill was dropped, and the present Bill—which contains many of the provisions of the Economy Bill—was handed over to the Board of Trade, one of the first alterations made was that the Clause was struck out. In doing so we were glad to know that we had, not only the support of the seamen themselves, but the hearty support of the shipowners. No section of the shipping industry desires to see the inspection of these provisions brought to an end. Several hon. Members have asked why it is that in Sub-section (4) of this Clause the word "shall" is changed into "may." The answer is that the way in which these provisions are now inspected, and the hest and most efficient manner of inspecting them, is in bulk on Land. The Board of Trade inspector goes through the warehouse there, marks them with the mark, and seals them with his seal. From there they go to the ships. We have only put in these words making it not compulsory on the Board of Trade to inspect the ships themselves because we do not want to be obliged to send our inspectors to those particular ships coming under the Clause in the 1894 Act when they have returned to England. We are advised by our officers carrying out this work that that is not necessary, and that if we do all the inspection of food in bulk in the warehouses in England, we can effect an economy of administration, and be relieved of costs which would be incurred by being forced to send inspectors down to ships whenever they come to British shores.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Is the Noble Lord aware that, under Section 206 of the Act of 1894, it is expressly laid down that the Inspection of provisions on certain ships going on certain routes must take place before shipment?
  Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member must remember that the Act of 1894 also obliges us to visit certain ships. It is that obligation of Which the Board of Trade desire to be relieved.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that Sub-section (2) of the Clause to which the Noble Lord has referred, states that the inspecting officer may, at any time, proceed on board any ship; the position being that with regard to inspection before shipment that should be compulsory; but inspection on board ship as permissible?
  Viscount WOLMER: I do not think the hon. Member has stated the point quite correctly. I am advised that that is not the case. I am perfectly certain, however, that his object and that of the Board of Trade in this matter is the same, and if it can be shown in Committee that the words can be improved the Government will be glad to do anything they can to put the matter beyond doubt. The object of these words is not to avoid inspection of provisions, but to enable the Board of Trade to do it in the way which experience has taught us to be the most efficient as well as the most economical, An hon. Member raised the question of masters and mates. Perhaps I ought to have interrupted him at the beginning of his speech, but I did not like to do so. Masters and mates are entirely excluded from this Bill, and so they are not affected.
  I come to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Sir C. Yate). He made two very interesting and important suggestions, but I am afraid they are a little bit outside the scope of this Bill. All I can say, and I say it with the greatest sincerity, is that they will receive the most careful consideration; Perhaps I may be allowed to consult the hon. and gallant Gentleman further on the matter. I shall be very glad to have that advantage, but I am afraid I cannot hold out the hope of the suggestions being included in the Bill at the present time. The hon. and learned
  606
  Member for Wallsend (Mr. Hastings) raised a very important point. It was a point of very great substance, but still it was a drafting point, a legal point. It is a matter which lawyers, who are experts on these questions, must deal with. I am not competent to question the legal knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or to argue with him on such a point. All I can say is that this Bill has been drafted by another learned lawyer. If the hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with the draftsman on this point, then, I agree, that is a matter that ought to be further carefully considered.
  I have endeavoured to deal with the points raised so far, which are, in the main, Committee points. The Government will be glad to consider at any time suggestions that might be made as to how greater economies can be carried out, or how improvements in the various Clauses of the Bill can be effected. We are not bringing forward this Bill because we like it, but because the state of the finances of the country compel us to cut down the national expenditure in every direction we possibly can. An hon. Member opposite, who was jealous for the interest of the shipowners, and who undertook their case so eloquently that he even went to the extent of making the speech of the lion. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn) for him, said that we had put too many items into this Bill. If the hon. Member had been in the House last year, and had read the Economy Bill, he would not have made that criticism. We have, in the present Bill, taken practically all the eases in which the Geddes Committee recommended that the fees charged for Government services should be increased or new fees imposed. We have put them all together in this Bill, We present them to the House of Commons as a practical manner in which a large amount of public money can be saved; in which the national interest in economy can he stimulated; and which will, if carried, result in a considerable saving to the National Exchequer.
  Question put, "That the word ' now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 160.

  Division No. 25.]

  AYES.

  [4.0 p.m.

  Adams, D.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Herriotts, J.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Hill A.

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

  Duncan, C.

  Hinds, John

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Dunnico, H.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynts

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  House, James Myles

  Ammon, Charles George

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

  Hutchison Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Irving, Dan

  Barnes, A.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Batey, Joseph

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

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Falconer, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)

  Fildes, Henry

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Foot, Isaac

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Jones J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Bonwick, A.

  Gosling, Harry

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Briant, Frank

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Broad, F. A.

  Greenall, T.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Buckle, J.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Burgess, S.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Lansbury, George

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Guest. J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Lawson, John James

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

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

  Leach, W.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Lee F.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Lees-Smith. H. B. (Keighley)

  Clarke, Sir E. C.

  Hancock, John George

  Lewis, Thomas A.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Harbord, Arthur

  Linfield, F. C.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Hardle, George D.

  Lowth, T.

  Coillson. Levl

  Harris, Percy A.

  Lunn, William

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Hayday, Arthur

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aheravon)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E)

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Henderson. T. (Glasgow)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Macpherson. Rt. Hon. James I.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Waring, Major Walter

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

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Warne, G. H,

  Millar, J. D.

  Saklatvala, S.

  Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Moreing, Captain Aigernon H.

  Sexton, James

  Webb, Sidney

  Morel, E D.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Weir, L. M.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Westwood, J.

  Muir, John W.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

  Murnin, H.

  Sinclair, Sir A.

  Whiteley, W.

  Murray, R. (Henfrew, Westurn)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Wignall, James

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

  Snell, Harry

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  Snowden, Philip

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th, S)

  Paling, W.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Parker, H. (Hanley)

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Sullivan, J.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Potts, John S.

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

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

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

  Riley, Ben

  Thornton, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ritson, J.

  Tout, W. J.

  Dr. Chapple and Mr. Hope Simpson.

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  Trevelyan, C. P.

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

  Turner, Ben

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Apsley, Lord

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

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

  Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Ednam, Viscount

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Erskine-Boist, Captain C.

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Falle. Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Bennett, Sir T, J. (sevenoaks)

  Formor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Berry, Sir George

  Franagan, W. H.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapliam)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Lloyd-Greame, Ht- Hon. Sir P.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Furness, G. J.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Ganzont, Sir John

  Lorden, John William

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Garland, C. S.

  Lougher, L.

  Brown, Brig,-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Gates, Percy

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

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

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Bruford, R.

  Gibbs. Colonel George Abraham

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Buchanan, G.

  Con, Sir R. Park

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

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Greaves-Lord, Walter.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

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

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Groves, T.

  Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

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

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

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Cairns, John

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H,

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

  Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hal,, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) I

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

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Halstead, Major D.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E, C. (Kent)

  Ormshy-Gore, Hon. William

  Clayton, G. C.

  Harrison, F. C.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Coates, Lt-Col Norman

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Pennefather. De Fonblanque

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Honnessy, Major J. R. G.

  Peto, Basil E.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Phllipson, H. H.

  Cope, Major William

  Hilder. Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Asshuton

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

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Privett, F. J.

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Ralne, W.

  Crooke. J. S. (Deritend)

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

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Hudson, Capt. A.

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

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

  Hughes, Collingwood

  Remnant, Sir James

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Hume, G. H. I

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Richards, R.

  Somervllie, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Wallace, Captain E.

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

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

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

  Roberts, Frederick O (W. Bromwich)

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

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

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)

  Stanley, Lord

  Wells, S. R.

  Robertson J. D. (Islington W.)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Stewart, Ger shorn (Wirral)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

  Wilson, Col. M. I. (Richmond)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Wise, Frederick

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

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

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Sutcliffe, T.

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Shipwright, Captain D.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Mr. Gerald Hurst and Lieut.-Colonel Nail.

  Division No. 26.]

  AYES.

  [7.10 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Botton M.

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Faicon, Captain Michael

  Molson, Major John Eisdale

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

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

  Fildes, Henry

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Apsley, Lord

  Flanagan, W. H.

  Morris, Harold

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Murchison, C. K.

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Furness, G. J.

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Gates, Percy

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

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

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

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Goft, Sir R. Park

  Nicholson. William G. (Petersfield)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Greaves-Lord, Walter

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

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

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

  Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Paget, T. G.

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

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

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Berry, Sir George

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Halstead, Major D.

  Peto, Basil E.

  Biundell, F. N.

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Phillpson, H. H

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Hancock, John George

  Pielou, D. P.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Harmsworth, Hon, E. C. (Kent)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Brass, Captain W.

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Pownali, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve

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

  Raine, W.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hewett, Sir J. P.

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

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

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Bruford, R.

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

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Bruton, Sir James

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

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Bum, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Burney, Com. (Mlddx., Uxbridge)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Strettord)

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Button, H. S.

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Ruggies-Brise, Major E.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

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

  Russell. William (Bolton)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hughes, Collingwood

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

  Hume, G. H.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hume-Wllllams, Sir W. Ellis

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Sandon, Lord

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Hurst. Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Shaw, Hon, Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

  Shipwright, Captain D.

  Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Simpson-Hinchclitte, W. A.

  Cockerlll, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Jephcott. A. R.

  Sinclair, Sir A.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Skelton, A. N.

  Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

  Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Colvln, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cope, Major William

  King Captain Henry Douglas

  Somerviile, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sparkes, H. W.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

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

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

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

  Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Stanley, Lord

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Davidson, J. C.(Hemel Hempstead)

  Lorden, John William

  Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lougher, L.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Dawson. Sir Philip

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Du Pre. Colonel William Baring

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Titchfleld, Marquess of

  Entwistle, Major C. F,

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Tryon, Rt Hon. George Clement

  Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

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

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  608

  609

  Wallace, Captain E.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

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

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Yerburgh, H. D. T.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Winterton, Earl

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

  Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wise, Frederick

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wells, S. R

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

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Gibbs.

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

  Worthington-Evana, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  NOES.

  Adams, D.

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Potts, John S.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Hastings, Patrick

  Price, E. G.

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

  Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Richards, R.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hemmerde, E. G.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Attlee, C. R.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Riley, Ben

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Ritson. J.

  Barnes. A.

  Herriotts, J.

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hill. A.

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Bonwick, A.

  Hinds, John

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Bowerman, Bt. Hon. Charles. W.

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Briant. Frank

  Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

  Sexton. James

  Bromfield, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Shinwell. Emanuel

  Brotherton. J.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Buchanan, G.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Sitch. Charles H.

  Buckle, J.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Smith. T. (Pontefract)

  Burgess, S.

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

  Snell, Harry

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Snowden, Philip

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Cairns, John

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Clarke, Sir E. C.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lansbury, George

  Sullivan, J.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lawson, John James

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Leach. W.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Darblshire, C. W.

  Lee, F.

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

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  lees-Smith, H. B (Keighley)

  Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Davies, J C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Lewis, Thomas A.

  Thornton, M.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Linfield. F. C.

  Tout, W. J,

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lowth, T.

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lunn, William

  Turner, Ben

  Duncan, C,

  MacDonald, J. R. (Abcravon)

  Waish, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Dunnico, H.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Warne, G. H.

  Ede, James Chuter

  March, S.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Edmonds, G.

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

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

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maxton, James

  Webb, Sidney

  Falconer, J.

  Millar, J. D.

  Westwood, J.

  Foot, Isaac

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz

  Wheatley, J.

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Morel, E. D.

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E)

  Gosling, Harry

  Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Whiteley, W.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Muir, John W.

  Wignall, James

  Greenall, T.

  Murnin, H.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Groves, T.

  Nlchol, Robert

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grundy, T. W.

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

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

  Guest. J. (York, Hemsworth)

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Wright, W.

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

  Oliver, George Harold

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Paling, W.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Parker, H. (Hanley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-

  Harbord, Arthur

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)

  Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. T.

  Hardie, George D.

  Phllllpps, Vivian

  Griffiths.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to insurance against unemployment, it is
  610
  expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:
  (a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution, and from and after the date so prescribed of such a contribution at a rate not exceeding one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions received from employers and employed persons ill any year

  611
  being contributions at rates not exceeding in the ease of men one shilling, in the case of women nine-pence, in the case of boys sixpence, and in the case of girls fourpenee halfpenny; and
  (b) of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour in paying to local education authorities, in respect of the amount by which the administrative expenses of local education authorities are increased by any additional duties undertaken under the Act in connection with the administration of benefit, such sums as may be determined in accordance with a scale to be fixed under the Act."
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendments on the Paper in the names of the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) and West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), I understand that it is not desired to proceed with the first one—that in the name of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough—if the second be in order. I have been carefully considering the second Amendment. In the Committee stage, it stood on the Paper with another Amendment, and I think by the Chairman was read as one with the preceding Amendment. It now stands on the Paper as a separate proposition. I have a good deal of doubt as to whether or not it imposes a charge. I have not been able absolutely to convince myself that it does. In these circumstances, I think it my duty to give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt and allow him to move the Amendment.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words
  "and from and after the date so prescribed of such a contribution at a rate not exceeding one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions received from employers and employed persons in any year being contributions at rates not exceeding in the case of men one shilling, in the case of women ninepence, in the case of boys sixpence, and in the case of girls fourpence halfpenny."
  I am obliged to you, Sir, for the consideration which you have shown to me in calling upon this Amendment. The point which it raises was put before the Committee last night in a somewhat different form, and unfortunately we had not the advantage of a reply from the Government upon it. If hon. Members read the Resolution they will see that it deals with three periods. The first period is described as the deficiency
  612
  period; the second period is the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed under the Act, and there is a further period beyond that date, during which it. is the assumption of the Government that normal conditions will arrive. The object of the Amendment is to delete from the Resolution the financial provision made for that final period. Those who support the Amendment regard this provision as altogether premature. In the first instance, in making provision even for the second period we are going a long way. I would remind hon. Members that the date on which this period will end is at present unknown. Varying forecasts as to its termination have been made in different parts of the House. The Minister of Labour, for example, made a forecast that the deficiency period—that is the period in which provision will be made for payments of benefit out of the loan—may be expected to come to an end in two or two-and-a-half years. Other hon. Members who take a less optimistic view of the prospects of trade, regard that forecast as unduly sanguine, and I think they have some justification for suggesting that the deficiency period will not end until at least four years have passed. It seems to me it would be quite enough to make provision for those four years and the Government could come to the House at the end of the four years, and apply for such provision as would then be necessary in the state of affairs then existing.
  We do not take exception to going beyond that period and making provision for the period between the end of the deficiency period and the prescribed date, whatever that may be. The reason why we do not take exception to the provision made for this intermediate period is, that we think the Government. on the whole, are making a fair contribution. They are providing that the existing State contribution is to continue during that time. It is, however, when the prescribed date has been reached—and nobody knows when it will be reached—that they are seeking under this Bill, which is essentially an emergency Bill, to stereotype for all time the State contribution towards unemployment insurance. We regard that as bad from two points of view. First, we regard it as had that we should now be making provision for

  613
  a time which is altogether in the indefinite future, a time which not even the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour can forecast. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot predict the date, he has still less means of giving any forecast of the conditions which will prevail when that hypothetical date arrives. I say, therefore, that this House has no business to make a permanent provision for hypothetical conditions, as to which we have absolutely no knowledge whatever. I think there should be general agreement on all sides of the House as to the soundness of that proposition. Grave blunders were made during the War by doing precisely the same thing. I am not going to enter into details, but I would quote, as an illustration, the enormous commitments undertaken in regard to education before 1918. They were hypothetical, and while they contained admirable proposals, they were commitments which were going to fall upon the country at a time when we had no idea as to what was the financial capacity of the country. That is the reason why so ninny of them have gone by the board. We are repeating precisely the same mistake under this Act, making a permanent provision for a time in the future, as to the conditions of which everybody in this House is ignorant, and I submit that we ought to do nothing of the kind.
  There is a further reason why I think this Amendment ought to be accepted by the Government. If this provision be made, you have settled the permanent form of unemployment insurance, and when the emergency period is over, whenever that may be, when this time of stress has passed away, it will not then be necessary for the Government to come to the House. [Interruption.] An hon. Friend on the Labour benches is of a sanguine disposition and predicts that his friends will then be on the Treasury Bench. He may be disappointed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] It is conceivable that he may be disappointed, and therefore he should act on the basis of the worst possible hypothesis, and that is that the present Government might still be there. It is the design and the motive of this Government that we ought to deal with, and undoubtedly it is their motive, by making this provision, to make it unnecessary for them to come to the House in future, so that the House will not be
  614
  in a position to make demands upon the Government for a more generous provision for the purposes of unemployment. All that will be left to the House then will be, by means of a private Member's Resolution at 8.15, to pass a pious Resolution, which will have no effect on the legislation of the country—Resolutions such as we have been passing this week and last week. They are of no account, whereas, if this provision be not made, then, when the emergency period comes to an end, the Government will require to legislate, the Bill will have to go through all its stages—Second Reading, Committee, Report, and Third Reading, and Committee and Report stages of the Financial Resolution—and the House will have ample opportunity of impressing their views on the Government as to what is the equitable provision then to be made. Thereby Parliamentary control will be safeguarded and preserved. It is for these two reasons that I am moving this Amendment—first of all, because this House, ignorant of what the future may hold, is not in a position to make provision for a hypothetical case and, in the second place, if this provision be made, we are abandoning that Parliamentary control which it is the duty of Members on all sides of the House, on every occasion, to do their utmost to preserve.
  Mr. LINFIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I desire to support the Amendment, because I am rather disappointed with the position. T should have thought that, after the case that was put to the Minister last night for some slight revision of this Financial Resolution, we might have been presented with such an offer from the Minister as would meet the undoubtedly justifiable objections which were then raised. I quite agree with the Mover of the Amendment, because if it be carried, the Bill will still retain a provision carrying over the two periods—first, the special period for uncovenanted benefit that makes necessary the higher form of contribution, and, secondly, the deficiency period which, so long as it remains, renders the high contribution necessary, that meaning a period of between two-and-a-half and four years before we get to any point where the Fund will be sound financially and clear of its debt responsibility. That, I suggest, is the only time

  615
  when the House can properly legislate with a knowledge of the circumstances with which they are then presented. Fifteen shillings a week is fixed as the rate of unemployment allowance for certain periods, with five shillings for the wife of the married applicant and one shilling for each child.
  It is upon that basis that the first part of the Financial Resolution proceeds in conjunction with the length of the deficiency period, but who can say that the circumstances that will have arisen at the end of the deficiency period may not necessitate a much more generous weekly allowance of unemployment benefit or may not call for a general revision of the whole of the financial arrangements associated with Part II of the National Health Insurance Act? That being so, the varying figures, which are too wide and too uncertain—with a maximum of 6d. from the employer, 6d. from the workman, and 3d. from the State, and a minimum of 4d. from the employer, 4d. from the workman, and 2d. from the State—those figures, anticipating, or attempting to anticipate, what will be the condition of things, possibly, four years hence, leave such a grave amount of doubt that I feel that the Amendment is one that ought to be carried, seeing that the financial provisions contained in the first part of the Resolution are ample for carrying us over until the end of the deficiency period.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I think perhaps we are making rather an unnecessary bother about what is, after all, a comparatively small point. I agree with a good deal that was said by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). He said, and quite truly said, that although this Bill does propose to make provision, certainly for 18 months and, possibly, for a longer period, still, in the nature of the circumstances with which we are all perfectly familiar—the uncertainties of the future, and so on—it is obvious that the Bill is not the last word in this matter, and that there must be, when times become normal again, a readjustment after full consideration of the circumstances. That is common ground between all of us. It is also a commonplace, in all these industrial difficulties, that the future is uncertain. I did suggest in the White
  616
  Paper that, on a very conservative basis and as an outside figure, a million and a quarter would be a fair figure to take for an average over a very considerable period, and I indicated the period, but it is quite possible, and I venture to hope, that that may prove to be an unnecessarily large estimate.
  I do not know what are the views of hon. Members opposite with regard to the principle of the dependants' allowances, but what I was anxious to do, by the Clauses of the Bill and the Financial Resolution, was to guard against any risk during the interim period, till the final readjustment arrived, of our being in difficulties with regard to the dependants' allowances. I will draw the attention of the House to this point, that this financial provision is merely an enabling provision; in other words, supposing the Clauses in the Bill continuing the dependants' allowances for the present, until the final readjustment takes place, were passed, and there were no financial Clause at all, then, if the deficiency period came to an end, the provision for dependants' allowances would he of no effect, because there would be no money behind it. But that equally carries with it the corollary that, supposing we passed the enabling Clauses in their present shape, it would be possible in another place, upstairs, to discuss the whole question of the dependants' allowances as a matter of principle. I do not say what the result would be, hut it might very well he that there would be considerable adjustments, or even limitations. of the dependants' allowances within the ambit that I have sketched.
  I suggest to the House that the proper course would be to let the Resolution go through its present stage. It is impossible that there can be serious difficulties or the permanent obligation involved in this Resolution which has been darkly hinted at by hon. Members opposite. It is merely a means of preventing any risk of our having on the Statute Book de pendants' allowances in theory, with no financial backing behind such provision, if by any chance trade did improve very rapidly and the deficiency period came to an end sooner than is anticipated. But if it be found, when in Committee, having got this enabling provision so far as finance is concerned, that it is desirable to deal with the particular principle of

  617
  dependants' allowances, we shall not be in any way hampered; we shall have the power, if we wish it, to adjust or to limit the provision as to dependants' allowances in any way that is thought desirable.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I think the House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but I suggest that it is not sufficient justification for carrying a Financial Resolution which really takes us very much further than the Minister would have us believe. I rather gathered that he suggested that at the end of the deficiency period we might be met with financial difficulties, but surely he has overlooked the fact that he has provided for that in the prescribed period, and that he has power to fix that prescribed period at some considerably distant date.
  Sir M. BARLOW: Only from the beginning of the next insurance year, which might be quite a short period of months.
  Mr. HAYDAY: It may be 11 months.
  Mr. THOMSON: As my hon. Friend says, it may be 11 months, but whether it be six mouths or 11 months, I submit that the very fact that the end of the deficiency period cannot possibly be arrived at within three or four years is sufficient. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman skillfully skated over that part of his argument by hoping that things would be better, and that he had taken an unduly pessimistic view of the trade outlook, but I would again refer him, as I did list night, to his. White Paper, on page 5 of which he shows that, according to the best information that he has, the deficiency will amount in October, 1924, to over £20,000,000. That is for 18 months hence, and if you have a deficiency of £20,000,000 in existence 18 months hence, I submit that that deficiency will not be wiped out, cannot be wiped out, within the next three years. If hon. Members follow the right hon. Gentleman's figures, they will find that in the six months from April, 1924, to October, 1924, the deficiency is reduced by less than £2,000,000. That means a rate of £4,000,000 a year, and therefore, if the improvement in trade were no greater than is anticipated, it would take five years from the end of the financial period to wipe out the deficiency. We all hope that trade will improve at a much greater rate, but even
  618
  in the most favourable circumstances I submit that, according to the Paper which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House, this deficiency period cannot possibly come to an end before three or three and a half years are over.
  Sir M. BARLOW: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend, but we really want to get the facts. I indicated, when I was speaking a moment ago, that the figures in the White Paper are based on a million and a quarter unemployed persons as the average. I said that that was taking a conservative view, that that was on the supposition that times are going to be not at all good, hut if times do improve—and I venture to think a million and a quarter is on the conservatime side and is a high figure—and we get the average down to a million or under a million, we should he paying off very much more rapidly than on the basis outlined in the White Paper, and therefore it. is not right to say that I indicate that under no possible circumstances can the deficiency period come to an end before three or four years. What I do indicate is that I have got to make provision on that basis, hut that if times improve, as I hope they will improve, so that the average is actually less than a million and a quarter, then those figures will not prove correct, and we shall get the deficiency period ending very much sooner.
  Mr. THOMSON: I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his more favourable view of the trade outlook, and the explanation he has given, but I submit that, even then, it will be two or even two and a half years, under the most sanguine expectations, before you come to the end of this deficiency period. But, be that as it may, as I said earlier, the Minister has already provided, and the Amendment we have moved does not affect, that prescribed period which will carry us over this interregnum, about which he has some fears from a financial point of view. If the prescribed period is not long enough, it is quite possible for the Committee upstairs to lengthen the period provided in the Bill. That will get over the possible risk of inadequate finance to provide for the dependants until a new Bill is brought forward. To a Bill dealing with an emergency, you should not attach permanent financial restrictions which will bind this House in

  619
  the future. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will take advantage of what is in this Bill, but one never knows how long he may be there, or who may be his successor in these times, and, therefore, the House must guard against unforeseen possibilities. It is very undesirable that the House should put it in the power of any Minister for the time being not to have to come to the House in order to revise these conditions, which are passed in a period of emergency and with some considerable haste. Therefore, I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he should meet us to the extent of accepting the Amendment, which will give him all the financial assistance he requires up to the furthermost period that will be necessary, and this will put pressure upon him and the Government to prepare some permanent scheme, which we all agree is necessary, as this is not the last word on unemployment insurance. It will be an additional reason why the Government should expedite the provision of means to deal more adequately with the problem, which is very insufficiently dealt with in the Bill. Therefore, I hope the Minister will meet us, realising that he has the protection he requires, at the same time giving the House further control over legislation in the future.
  Sir G. COLLINS: Probably the best argument in favour of the Amendment was the speech of the Minister himself. He said, in the course of his remarks, it is common ground between us that there must be a readjustment in unemployment insurance when times become normal. We suggest that that is the right time to adjust the finances of the Bill. The Minister of Labour, however, thinks that in the abnormal times with which we are faced to-day we should legislate for the future. There is one further argument I would like to address to the right hon.
  Gentleman. This Insurance Bill covers some ten and a half million people. It has only been working for two or three years during very abnormal times. Is this the right time, when such large numbers of people have been brought under Unemployment Insurance, that we should legislate for the future? I think the right hon. Gentleman is asking the House of Commons too much this evening when he asks the House to decide, not only what the contribution from the State shall be in the future, but probably the contributions from the employers and employés. As he knows, there is very seldom a Division on the Second Reading of these Bills. All sections of the House are anxious to treat this matter with seriousness, and when we move, as we did last night, and again this evening, not to prejudge the future, not to settle to-day what the burden on the State will be in the future, we do not wish to commit future Parliaments to their course of action, especially at a time when Unemployment Insurance is going through many stages. There is a largely growing body of opinion in the country that, perhaps, the best way to deal with this subject is by insurance by industry. I express no opinion on that, but if this Resolution be passed in the form in which it is on the Order Paper, it may well be a death-blow to this particular form of dealing with this problem. Therefore, at this very late hour, I rise, in no spirit of hostility, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept the Amendment and leave future Parliaments to decide that matter according to their judgment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 235: Noes, 154.

  Division No. 27.]

  AYES.

  [7.55 p.m.

  AggGardner, Sir James Tynte

  Bell. Lleut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

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

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Bruford, R.

  Alexander. E. E. (Leyton, Cast)

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

  Bruton, Sir James

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Berry, Sir George

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Amery. Ht. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Birchail, Major J. Dearman

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Archer-shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Button, H. S.

  Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cadogan. Major Edward

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve

  Cassels. J. D.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Cautley. Henry Strother

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Atton)

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

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Raine, W.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hopklnson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

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

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Reynolds, w. G. W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hughes, Collingwood

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hume, G. H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hume-Wllllams, sir W. Ellis

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Strettord)

  Colvin, Brig. General Richard Beale

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hurst, Lleut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Cope, Major William

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

  Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

  Russell, William (Bolton)

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

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

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Sandon, Lord

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Shipwright, Captain D.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  KinlochCooke, Sir Clement

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A, B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Lorden, John William

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Lort-Willlams, J.

  Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Lougher, L.

  Sparkes, H. W.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Stanley, Lord

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Lumley, L. R.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Stewart. Gershom (Wirral)

  Fawkes. Mafor F. H.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Fildes, Henry

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.

  Flanagan, W. H.

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H,

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Furncss, G. J.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Molloy, Major L.G.S.

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Molson, Major John Eisdale

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Greaves-Lord, Walter

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

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

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Murchison, C. K.

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

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Waring, Major Walter

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

  Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwlch)

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

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

  Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W.(Liv'p'I.W.D'by)

  Newson, Sir percy Wilson

  Wells, S. R,

  Halstead, Major D.

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

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

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

  White, Lt.-Col. G. D. 9Southport)

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Nicholson William G. (Petersfield)

  Whitla, Sir William

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Winterton, Earl

  Havvke, John Anthony

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wise, Frederick

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

  Paget, T. G.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

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

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Pease William Edwin

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

  Hewett, Sir J, P.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanuue

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

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

  Peto, Basil E.

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

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Phllipson, H. H.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Pielou, D. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  NOES.

  Adams, D.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Buchanan, G.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

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

  Buckle, J.

  Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)

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

  Burgess, S.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Attlee, C. R.

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

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Barnes, A.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Duncan, C.

  Batey, Joseph

  Cairns, John

  Dunnico, H.

  Bonwick, A.

  Cape, Thomas

  Ede, James Chuter

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Edmonds, G.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Clarke, Sir E. C.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

  Brlant, Frank

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

  Bromfield. William

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Brotherton, J.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Falconer, J.

  622

  623

  Foot, Isaac

  Kirkwood, D.

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Gosling, Harry

  Lansbury, George

  Saklatvala, S.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lawson, John James

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Leach, W.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Greenall, T.

  Lee, F.

  Sexton, James

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lewis, Thomas A.

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Groves, T.

  Lowth, T.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Lunn, William

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

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

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Snell, Harry

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Snowden, Philip

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  March, S.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Hancock, John George

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford. S.)

  Harbord, Arthur

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

  Stephen, Campbell

  Hardle, George D.

  Maxton, James

  Stewart, J (St. Rollox)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Morel, E. D.

  Sullivan, J.

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

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

  Hastings, Patrick

  Muir, John W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

  Murnin, H.

  Thornton, M.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Turner, Ben

  Hemmerde, E. G.

  Nichol. Robert

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Warne, G. H.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Hill, A.

  Paling, W.

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

  Hinds, John

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Westwood, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Wheatley, J.

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Whiteley, W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Potts, John S.

  Wignall, James

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Richards, R.

  Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Johnstons, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Riley, Ben

  Wood, Major MM. (Aberdeen, C.)

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

  Ritson, J.

  Wright, W.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Kenvnn, Barnet

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. T. Thomson and Mr. Linfield.

  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY.- [1ST MARCIE]
  Resolution reported,
  SUPPLY.- [1ST MARCIE]

    CLASS V.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £813,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will cone in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for sundry Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. PRINGLE: It will be asking too much of the House on the Report stage of this Vote to pass it in the short period which now intervenes before the Resolution at 8.15. The conditions under which the discussion took place on the Committee stage of the Vote will be fresh in the minds of hon. Members. We were then advised by the Government that it was very inexpedient to deal with certain
    624
    aspects of this Vote on account of the critical state of the negotiations going on in the capital of the Turkish Nationalists, Angora. It was represented that net that time the position was one of extreme delicacy, and in that delicate position, not only the votes in this House, but also the speeches of hon. Members, might have a considerable effect on the decision taken. It seems to me, however, from the reports which are to hand in the daily Press, that either the discussions at Angora have been concluded, or are very near conclusion: and, therefore, to take the Report stage of this Resolution purely as a formal Measure is scarcely to the point. We should have a real opportunity of debate, and to take a decision with free and unfettered hands, so that we may let the Government know whether the policies involved in these Votes and included in this Resolution should or should not be continued.
    There are a number of things which require investigation, and upon which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, did not enlighten the House during the Committee stage. There are many matters in connection with the railways upon which he showed a very discreet

    625
    reticence. For example, in dealing with the very large Supplementary Estimate for the railway, he thought to minimise the charge which this area involved for the future to this country. I understand that the whole question of liability, in respect of the railways, was discussed with expert assistance at the celebrated Cairo Conference, at which Mr. Winston Churchill cut such a dashing figure as a kind of modern emperor of the Middle East. From such information as has come into my possession, I understand that a very large sum was estimated as the amount which would be necessary for reconditioning these railways, and the bother is, that this House, from time to time, is only troubled with comparatively small Votes. The original Vote of the present year was only a half of what it has actually cost. We shall probably find again, when the Estimates for the railways of Iraq are presented next year, that the moderate sum is once more placed before the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head. Do I understand it will not be moderate?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): There will not be one at all.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In nearly every case anticipations have not been fulfilled. Last year when a moderate Estimate was made we were disappointed to find that it actually came to double for the purposes required. Probably about this time next year we shall have an Estimate which will be the equivalent of a new service. It is of importance that we should have an opportunity of dealing with this Supplementary Estimate, and that the House should signify clearly that it intends to have no more of this expenditure, that it is going to put an end to it, and that it is not only going to put an end to it in regard to the railways, but in regard to the military expenditure for the purposes of the whole of that area. I mention that the railways was one of the main considerations discussed at the Cairo Conference. The information which I have received in regard to the Estimates then made as to the liability in respect of the railways was that these would take about £6,000,000 to recondition. So far as I can ascertain no amount approximating to that has yet been granted on our Estimates. I
    626
    therefore distrust the optimistic predictions with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman sought to beguile the Committee.
    I have read similar optimistic predictions by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have at one time or another spoken in regard to the Middle East. I remember an optimistic prediction by the late Prime Minister and by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, and now the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) is entering very worthily into that lineal succession. Time will prove whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman will attain to an equal reputation for accuracy to that of any of his illustrious predecessors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am sorry that hon. Members should seek to spurn the very high distinction I am offering to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. In these days when Cabinet Ministers are falling, and offices are becoming vacant, I should have thought a testimonial of this character would have been of the utmost value for the purpose of a Front Bench which is as barren of imagination as the one we see before us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I hope I have said nothing to which hon. Members can take exception. I have endeavoured to clothe, no doubt inadequately, the compliment I was uttering in the only language I was able to command. However, a more serious issue, and far more serious than the raillways, is the charge in regard to defence. It was in this regard that we were asked not to speak at all in the course of the Committee Debate. Consequently, since the Committee Debate has come to an end and the negotiations at Angora are concluded—
    HON. MEMBERS: "Yes," and "No!"
    Captain O'GRADY: The Turks have turned it down.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I will accept my hon. and gallant Friend's words "terminated," or "turned down," the proposals. The reason, then, for refusing or declining to deal with policy no longer holds goods. Those of us who have opposed the whole Mesopotamian adventure have opposed it not only on the ground of expense, but on the ground that it was strategically weakening the Empire, that it was strategically weakening our posi-

    627
    tion in the Near and Middle East for the purpose of finally settling a peace with Turkey. There is no doubt, if anyone examines the situation as it arose in the months of September and October last, that one of the factors which most seriously affected our action, and which to the greatest extent improved the position of the Turks for the purpose of negotiation, was the fact that we were in Mosul and the position of our troops in Constantinople. It was not the naval position in the Straits or the Sea of Marmora that rendered it difficult for us to bring the Turks to a reasonable frame of mind.
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of tilt Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order N o. 4.

    NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE.
    Dr. SALTER: I beg to move,
    "That, in view of the practically universal acceptance of the principal that a living wage for all workers should be the first charge on industry, and in view of the large measure of agreement with respect to the advisability of fixing legal minimum time rates of wages reached at the National Industrial Conference, this House urges the Government to proceed without delay with the Bill introduced by the Government of the day in 1919 constituting a Commission to inquire into and report upon legal minimum time rates of wages."
    I think every Member of this House will admit that in a civilised society every worker has a right to a living wage. That is a principle which has been accepted by every section of thought in the country or accepted at any rate in theory. You have had Church Congresses, National Free Church Councils, non-political conferences and committees of every description endorsing that principle, and Parliament itself has, so far as the limited number of trades and industries are concerned, enacted legislation to give effect to the principle of a minimum wage if not a living wage to many classes of the poorly-paid workers. The direct intervention of the State in the determination of wage rates was practically forced on this House by the revelations during the period 1900–06 when the great agitation against sweating was being conducted and when various anti-sweating exhibi-
    628
    tions were being run by various newspapers up and down this country. The evidence which was forthcoming at that time showing that a large section of workers, particularly women, were receiving rates of wages which only enabled them to live below the level of subsistence was so overwhelming that the conscience of the nation was struck, and this House was practically forced to deal with the matter. The Board of Trade Census in 1906 showed that in certain textile trades more than one-half of the adult women employed were receiving less than 10s. a week, and between 20 and 25 per cent. of those women were receiving actually less than 5s. per week for full-time employment. Consequently in 1909 this House passed the first Trade Boards Act which applied to four specific industries, namely, wholesale tailoring, matchbox making, lace making, and chain making. In 1918 the Act was extended to other trades and in 1917 Parliament provided for the inclusion of agricultural workers under the Corn Production Act. In 1912 a minimum wage was fixed for coal miners which affected highly organised sections of workers. The operation of that Act is based upon a different principle from that of the Trade Boards Acts. Throughout the War you had various Munitions of War Acts in 1915, 1916 and 1917 which, while not actually fixing a minimum wage, did make all agreed or awarded rates of wages binding not only on the persons concerned, hut practically on al employers and workers in a similar occupation. I think it is correct to say that by the end of the War such an improvement of wage rates generally had been registered, that one can say that practically every worker in the country war; receiving a living wage. In 1919 after the War the then Government published a pamphlet called "The State Regulation of Wages." and referring to the improvement in wage sates generally and looking forward to the future the pamphlet said:
    "One thing is certain. The question of wages will never he allowed to return to the position of ten years ago. when the Government had no concern in it. A policy will he pursued of stimulating production and at the same time of securing to the worker a fair share of the product. A reasonable standard of wages must he a first charge, perhaps the first charge."
    Unfortunately the question of wages has returned to the position of ten years ago

    629
    with a vengeance, and there is a larger number of workers at the present moment in receipt of less than a living wage for fur-time labour than in the days when the first Trade Boards Act was passed. You have even got the extraordinary spectacle of able-bodied men in full employment doing work which is not only useful to their employers and essential to the nation and yet they are receiving wages at such a low level that they are obliged to have recourse to the Poor Law. We have at this particular moment almost returned to the days of pre-1834 when the Poor Law Amendment Act was passed. It is a most astounding state of things.
    The facts about wages are so notorious that I need not labour them. The question of agricultural wages has been before this House recently, and it is known to everyone that there are counties in this country in which the accepted rate of wages for agricultural labourers is only £1s. or 22s. per week. In Norfolk notices have been served bringing the rate down below per week for a man doing 54 hours' work per week. I need not dwell upon the condition of things in the mining industry. Engineers' labourers to-day are receiving 40s. 5d. per week, shipbuilders labourers 40s., workers in His Majesty's Dockyards 41s., and workers in India rubber factories 40s. In a great many of these cases men with families out of a wage of 40s. a week are obliged to pay one half in rent. We could cite innumerable instances of men receiving 40s. a week who are paying 13s., 14s., 16s. and 1.8s. a week in rent, leaving only midi a margin that under-nourishment and semi-starvation of their children is inevitable. It may be urged that the plight of these people is due to foreign competition, and that their employers are perfectly helpless.
    I will not argue that point now, but even if that is the case it does not apply to the distributing trades and the catering trades, and in those trades to-day the rates of wages are positively lower than in any other industries of this country which are most exposed to foreign competition. Some time ago the Cave Committee took evidence on the question of the working of the Trade Boards Act, and a great deal of evidence was given by the National Union of
    630
    Shop Assistants, and hon. Members who desire facts on the subject can refer to the evidence given before that Committee, and there they will find that here in London adult male assistants in the grocery trade were getting 20s. a w eek, adult women clerks 18s. a week, shop assistants in the drapery trade, aged 18, receiving 5s. a week, and a number of adult women employés were receiving 9s. for a 70-hour week. In the catering trades, waitresses, barhands, kitchen hands, serving maids, dairy assistants were getting from 5s. to 12s. a week, very often for a seven-day week and working 10 or 12 hours a day. They were living out, not living in. On these benches our position is that wages have now sunk for millions of our people below the subsistence level, and the claim we put forward is that a national minimum wage shall be definitely secured to the workers of this country either by Statute or by legal administrative process. We do not ask for a universal, flat rate minimum applicable to all industries and all districts alike. We recognise that that is impracticable under present conditions, more especially as the cost of living varies within wide limits between area and area and rural and urban districts especially. The suggestion which we put forward is that there shall be a national rate for each trade with zonal or district variations. As to the method of securing that, we suggest that there shall be established by law Wages Boards on the same principle as Trades Boards, which Boards, after proper inquiry, shall have power to fix rates which will he binding on the employers in the trade with, of course, certain zonal and district variations fixed after further inquiry. So far as regards trades where both employers on the one side and workmen on the other are properly organised, and by negotiation have come to agreement as to a minimum wage figure, we ask that such agreement, by the fact of registration, shall have the force of law and be binding on all concerned.
    This proposal for a national minimum wage on these lines is by no means a wild or reckless scheme lacking in backing from responsible quarters. I would like to call attention to what has taken place in this House during the last two or three years. On 27th February, 1919, the late Government summoned a National Industrial Conference, which

    631
    was held at the Central Hall, Westminster. According to a report in "The Times," there were some 800 persons present, representing equally employers and employed in practically every staple trade in the country. That Conference set up a Joint Committee composed equally of representatives of the work-people and of the employers. The Chairman of the Committee (Sir Thomas Munro) was nominated by the Government. The Committee sat for sonic time and then issued a Report, which said:
    "The Committee have agreed that minimum time rates should he established by legal enactment and that they ought to be of universal applicability. The Committee took full cognizance of the difficulties of determining particular rates and of dealing with exceptional cases."
    They made the following recommendations to the Government:
    "That a Commission should be appointed immediately upon the passing of the Act to report within three months as to what these rates should be and by what methods and what successive steps they should he brought into operation.
    That the Commission should advise on the means of carrying out the necessary administrative work."
    Finally, they suggested that where an agreement was arrived at between respective organisations of employers and trade unions in any trade laying down a minimum rate of wages, the Minister of Labour should have power to apply such minimum rates to all employés engaged in the trade. I may mention that the Committee which drew up these recommendations were absolutely unanimous, and that every single employer represented on it agreed with these recommendations. They represented every staple trade in the country. These recommendations were put before a further meeting of the National Industrial Conference on 4th April. At that Conference, which was presided over by the then Minister of Labour (Sir Robert. Horne), there was on the platform the right lion. Member for North Camberwell and several other Members of the Government giving the gathering their benison. Sir Robert Horne read a letter from the Prime Minister strongly recommending the Report and concluding as follows:
    "If the recommendations of the Committee receive the approval of the Conference the Government will give them their immediate and sympathetic consideration."
    632
    The Report was adopted by the Conference, and as a result on 18th August, 1919, the Minister of Labour from the Government Benches introduced to the House the Minimum Rates of Wages Commission Bill for the purpose of constituting a Commission of Inquiry into the whole subject and to early out the recommendations of the Conference. The preamble of the Bill was as follows:
    "Whereas it is expedient that minimum time rates of wages should be fixed for all persons of the age of 15 years and upwards and should in the ease of persons of 18 years and upwards be fixed at such amounts that all such persons whether employed at a time rate or otherwise will he afforded an adequate living wage, that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into and decide what these rates should be and the manner in which they should be brought into operation."
    The Clauses of the Bill provided for the appointment of Commissioner with a Chairman, and the Commission was directed to inquire into what these minimum time-rates should be, having regard to the cost of living in various districts, and they were instructed to make recommendations as to the steps by which these minimum time-rates should be brought into operation. They were to make recommendations as to how exemptions from such case, in the case of infirm and other workers, might be granted, and they were given extensive powers to examine, by means of an accountant, wages sheets, books and trade accounts, so as to ascertain what wages the particular trade could bear. The Bill proposes to set up complete preliminary machinery for giving legislative effect to the proposals. Its backers were Sir Robert Horne, Sir A. Geddes and Mr. Wardle. The War had been over at that time for more than a year. The late Prime Minister, speaking after the introduction of the Bill, laid great emphasis on the fact that it was an agreed Bill and that all sections had accepted it. Quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT, may I remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "This Bill represents the agreement arrived at between employers and workmen on this important council (the Industrial Council). They have taken weeks, I might even say months to consider it. They have examined it in every detail.&It provides a living wage for those who are engaged in industry in this country.&These Measures will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow, and they are, I think,

    633
    the most important Measures dealing with labour problems which have ever been submitted to the judgment of this House. An opportunity will be given during the vacation for employers and workmen to examine them thoroughly and by the time the House resume they will be in a position to give us an opinion on the provisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th August, 1919; col. 1996, Vol 119.]
    That was on 18th August, 1919. The Minister of Labour moved that the Bill be read a Second time the next day, hut the next day the House adjourned until 22nd October, and, so far as I can discover, that Bill has never seen the light of day since. It is that very Bill that we are now asking the Government to reintroduce and pass into law. We recognise, of course, that it is quite impossible to set up Minimum Wage Boards to determine rates of wages in each trade without a great deal of preliminary inquiry, and without the accumulation of a great deal of data, in order to enable the Hoards to function, and the object of the Bill is to establish the necessary machinery for collecting and accumulating that information. I believe that if that is done, and if legislative effect can be given to the proposal for a minimum wage, this House will be meeting the desire of very large numbers of people of all sections of thought in the country, people of good will, who desire to see the scandal of this gross underpayment of large sections of their fellow citizens abolished for ever.
    If the House will allow me, I should like for a moment or two to deal with one or two of the objections that we hear urged against the principle of a statutory minimum wage for all. The first objection is, that the whole thing is impossible, but I think that that objection goes by the hoard at ones, because of the fact that a minimum rate of wages—a living wage—is already secured by Statute and is in actual operation not only in a good many of our Colonies, but in other countries as well at the present time. In the Colony of Victoria there has been a Wages Board system ever since 1896, and I believe that that system, beginning with one or two specified trades, has gradually become extended until it has covered practically all the trades in the country. In South Australia in 1900, in New South Wales in 1901, in Western Australia in 1902, in the Commonwealth in 1904, in
    634
    Queensland in 1908, and in Tasmania in 1911, similar Measures were introduced, and are at present in full operation. In New Zealand there is also a minimum wage secured, though on principles rather different from those which are in operation in Australia; and in Canada, nine provinces have adopted the principle—the first law having been passed in 1917 of a minimum wage for working women only, leaving adult men out of consideration. In the United States of America, 12 States now, including Massachusetts, Oregan, Utah, Washington, California, Wisconsin, all have similar Acts, and in Ohio the Legislature actually went so far as to pass an amendment to the Constitution, in order to allow a minimum wage law to be adopted. Embryonic or initial legislation of a similar character is now actually the law of the Lind in France, Norway, Sweden, and the Argentine.
    In New South Wales, and also in other parts of Australia, but particularly in New South Wales, the minimum wage rates fixed by the Board are very high indeed, having regard to the usual standards in this country, and if they were suggested here they would probably make the hair stand on end, not only of many employers, but of many Members of this House. It is quite clear, I think, that it is useless to urge that such a scheme is impossible, because, as I have said, it is already in actual operation. It is said that the experience of the working of the Trade Boards Act has demonstrated that the fixing of a minimum wage is prejudicial to trade and industry and, reflexly, hurts working people themselves. But, whatever objection may be urged on those lines in respect of an individual industry or an individual employer here and there, speaking generally, that view was not held by the Cave Committee itself. The Cave Committee reported as follows:
    "The Committee think it is established that the system lies had beneficial effects. Speaking generally, Trade Boards have succeeded in abolishing the grosser forms of under-payment, and in regularising wage conditions in trades covered by the Acts. Moreover, in establishing statutory minima. Trade Boards have afforded protection to the good employer and secured him against unserupulous competitors, and the Committee is satisfied that the operation of the system has contributed, on the whole, to the improvement of industrial relations."
    The Committee recommended, as the House knows, certain small modifications to which the Government announced that it was going to give effect in their Bill. Speaking generally, the Report of the Commission was clearly in favour of the operation of the Trade Boards Acts. In regard to the particular charge that legal minima fixed by Trade Boards have injured industry, damaged trade and contributed to unemployment, a very effectual answer has been supplied by Professor Henry Clay, professor of economics in Manchester University. In a letter to the "Times" on the 26th September last, he analysed the unemployment statistics of the country and showed that, of the 12,000,000 persons who would come under the working of the Unemployment Insurance Acts at that time, 13·15 per cent. were out of work, but in occupational groups covered by the Trade Boards Act barely 8 per cent. were out of work. These figures demonstrate quite conclusively that the operation of Trade Boards does not contribute to unemployment.
    It may be asked what we mean exactly by the expression "minimum wage." The usual definition adopted by such authorities as Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree is as follows: It is the minimum income necessary to maintain physical efficiency for an average family of five—father, mother and three children; it being assumed that the wage is expended on necessaries only and on the most scientific methods. Mere physical efficiency and the expenditure of the wage to the very best possible advantage! Surely, in a civilised and Christian country, that is not too much to ask for every worker in the whole country. The definition which is given in America is contained in the Official Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Statistics, and is as follows:
    "The basis for determining a minimum wage in all the States, with the exception of Utah, which has a uniform flat rate, is the average necessary cost of living for a family, and it is fixed in every instance by a preliminary investigation by a Commission."
    In New South Wales the Wages Boards are guided by the following statutory principle—again I quote the exact words:
    "The standard of living shall be such as to provide a worker of the said class and his said dependent family with the normal requirements of a member of a civilised
    636
    community, and the Board shall from year to year, after public inquiry as to the increase or decrease in the average cost of living, declare what shall be the living wage to be paid to adult male employés in the State or definite areas thereof."
    We suggest that these definitions which have been arrived at, and are actually in use at the present time, should be adopted for the purposes of the Measure which we are now asking the Government to introduce. We say that a method which has been found to work with smoothness, simplicity and efficiency in our colonies and elsewhere could he and should be adopted here. It is obviously quite possible to ascertain on scientific lines the wage necessary in given areas to purchase from time to time a standard minimum of living, that is to say, the necessary amount for housing, clothing and food. The business of the Commission which we suggest would he to ascertain the minimum for each trade and to convert the values of those human necessities into wage rates; and as of course money wages have not equal purchasing value all over the country, and particularly as between rural and urban districts, local or zonal variations would be introduced by the Commission.
    I have to refer to what I gather is the stock argument from discussions I have heard in the Lobby and elsewhere, and what is regarded as a conclusive argument, against the establishment of a minimum wage board, namely, that the trade cannot afford such an inflation and that, as a matter of fact, the country cannot afford it. Let it be granted that as the result of the War, as the result of the peace, as the result of the disorganisation of the exchanges, as the result of the collapse of European trade, and generally the interference with our own trade, that this country as a whole is bound to accept for a time, at any rate, a lower standard of living. We say it is grossly unfair that the whole burden of that depreciation of the standard of life should be borne, as it is, by one class, and that the most helpless and the weakest class. If the country has to submit to a reduction of the standard of living, that should be universally applicable. It should apply to all classes, and all classes should have to bear their share. We further say that if that were so, and if workmen felt that the other classes, the employing class and the dividend and

    637
    profit-receiving class, equally bore their share in this burden, and they could be persuaded that it was so, the working classes would accept their share in the reduction in the standard of living as cheerfully as they did during the War.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not a fact that those classes in this country are contributing more than any other country in the world towards the sharing of that burden?
    Dr. SALTER: I am coming to that point, and am proposing to submit figures dealing with the matter. So far as workmen are concerned, the Board of Trade Returns show that wages were cut during 1921 by a net amount of £6,041,000 per week, and in 1922 by another £4,206,000 per week—that is to say, by £10,500,000 per week during the last two years, and, of course, these figures do not include large numbers of the working population. They do riot include agricultural labourers, clerks, railwaymen, municipal employés, and n umbers of other sections, and I do not think it is disputed that the working classes as a whole have had during the last two years to submit to a reduction in wages amounting to ever £12,000,000 per week at the very least, or over £600,000,000 per year.
    I come to the point raised by the hon. arid gallant Gentleman opposite. The average rate of dividend of the capitalist and owning classes as a whole has riot diminished, and I propose to submit certain figures which I think are conclusive. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will refer to the last issue but one of the "Economist" he will see an analysis of the dividends paid by a certain number of companies—319—which that paper analyses every quarter. It is a standing feature of the paper. It says definitely that in the last quarter of 1922 the average dividend of all those companies was 86 per cent., as compared with 7·6 in the corresponding quarter of 1921. This important series, including the most representative industries—hotels and restaurants, iron, coal and steel, land mortgages, motor and cycle companies, nitrates, oil, rubber, shipping, shops and stores, telegraphs, textiles, tramways, and other miscellaneous companies—do not include banking statistics. They do not include the figures of banks, which alone, if they were introduced, would raise the
    638
    average dividends to between 10½ and 12 per cent. of all the companies analysed. They do not include railway companies, and their dividends, as just recently announced, show that in practically every case the shareholders are receiving better rates this year than last year, and much better rates than in pre-War time. Let roe quote one or two for the satisfaction of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. Great Western ordinary, 8 per cent. in 1922, 7¼ per cent. in 1921, 6¼ per cent. in 1913. London and North-Western, 8½ per cent. in 1922, 7½ per cent. in 1921, 7 per cent. in 1913. Great Central, 4½ per cent. in 1922, 2½ per cent. in 1921, 2 per cent. in 1913. London and South-Western, 8 per cent. in 1922, 6 per cent. in 1921, and 5¼ per cent. in 1913. London, Chatham and Dover, 4½ per cent. in 1922. 4 per cent. in 1921, 1½ per cent. in 1913. South-Eastern Railway deferred, 5 per cent. in 1922, 2½; per cent. in 1921, and 2 per cent. in 1913. Those figures are absolutely conclusive. They do not include the dividends of the great brewery companies, which are even more striking. More than a dozen of the great brewing companies of the country for this last year declared dividends of over 20 per cent' free of Income Tax. You have Ind Coope's with 25 per cent., Guinness's 29 per cent. Watney, Coombe and Reid, 32 per cent., and Noakes's, 75 per cent., and this in spite of the fact that the consumption of beer has been reduced by nearly half.
    Mr. J. JONES: We are drinking less and paying more.
    Dr. SALTER: Let us come to some of the trades which have been uttering wails and lamentations about their position. Take textiles. In spite of the shocking, almost criminal, watering of stock which took place pretty universally during the boom time of 1920—I quote from the "Investors' Chronicle" of a fortnight ago—there has been a most extraordinary burst of activity. The actual paragraph referred to is as follows:
    "As has been reported in this column from week to week recently, textiles have been showing considerable activity, but on Tuesday they burst into a blaze on the extremely fine showing made by the Bradford Dyers' report which, covering a period of two years, announced a profit of £1,800,000 and a dividend of 35 per cent. for the year. This, together with Courtaulds, showing a profit of over £3,000,000, led to an outburst of buying which sent the prices of leading textile shares up with

    639
    a bound. Courtaulds' dividend is 25 per cent., Fine Cotton Spinners is expected to be at least 12½ per cent. and Bleachers' Association will be well above the 12½ per cent. returned last year."
    It is only a few weeks ago that I listened to the Prime Minister telling this House that there was scarcely a business in this country which was showing a profit at present. We all know what a remarkable and astonishing memory the Prime Minister possesses. With great admiration we watch him delivering speeches in which he replies to large numbers of intricate queries from all corners of the House without a note. I can only imagine that on this occasion his amazing memory must have played him false, or else he must somehow or other have mixed up and transposed wages and profits. I could go on, for the benefit of the hon. and gallant Gentleman if time permitted, by the hour giving figures like these, showing the dividends which have been paid.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: It is very interesting.
    Dr. SALTER: It is interesting, because it would appear that the capitalist classes to-day are having a larger profit out of the slump than they did out of the boom. And while, at one end of the scale you have wage cuts down to the very bone, until millions of our people in full work are forced down to practical destitution and to a standard of living considerably below the subsistence level, you have, on the other hand, these fabulous dividends and you have, as everyone knows who goes about the West End, ostentation, luxury, extravagance, and waste of every description, which is being paid for by the blood and sweat of the workers. It is said that the country cannot afford a living wage for all its workers. It can afford a very large number of people, rich and super-rich people, who contribute absolutely nothing by their labour to the community. I quote the words of Russell Lowell—
    "Have ye built your thrones and altars then,
    On the bodies and souls of living men.
    And think ye that building shall endure
    Which shelters the noble and crushes
    the poor? "
    We say that that, building cannot endure say it is bound to fall. We hope,
    640
    frankly, on this side ultimately to pull down that building, and to erect a better and nobler edifice in its place. We are not here to-night to demand a revolution in our social affairs. We are here to put forward an exceedingly modest and exceedingly moderate request. We ask that the Government shall reintroduce the Bill of 1919, which only proposes to establish the necessary machinery and accumulate the necessary information for, ultimately, at a later stage, giving effect to the almost universal desire of this country for a minimum living wage for all its workers.
    Mr. SITCH: I beg to second the Motion, and in doing so I wish to congratulate the hon. Member on his successful maiden speech. That speech has made my task somewhat easy, because he has made out an unanswerable case for the House to adopt the Resolution, which merely asks, first, that this House shall endorse the decision of the late Government, and also the decision of the Joint Industrial Conference of 1919, and apply legal minimum rates to every industry, Secondly, the Resolution asks the House to agree to the appointment of a Commission for the purpose of examining the methods and steps to be adopted to bring those rates into operation. When the Industrial Conference met in 1919 there was a great deal of unrest in the country. The sole object of the Prime Minister in summoning that industrial conference was to try and promote what he termed harmony and goodwill in industry. There is just as much need for the promotion of harmony and goodwill in industry to-day as there was then.
    In the past we have always had people who have objected to any kind of State interference in industry. They belong to that school of thought who ask, as they put it, for free labour in a free market. That school of thought has opposed almost every social reform that has ever been introduced. They opposed the Education Act on the ground that education would increase the cost of production. They were against the prevention of child labour, the fencing of dangerous machinery, and against all trade combinations of workers; in short, against the whole trend of modern industrial legislation. More particularly, did they oppose the fixing of any kind of minimum

    641
    wage by Act of Parliament. It was written a few years ago by the hon. Member for Colne Valley that the cash relation between employer and employed was so sacred that to interfere with it by law was to commit the unpardonable economic sin, and that to increase wages would increase the cost of production and must ruin industry.
    9.0 P.M.
    These arguments are based on the assumption that the industries referred to can only exist by the employment of sweated labour. If that argument be sound, then I say, and I know that my colleagues will endorse this view, that it is best for those industries to perish, rather than they should continue at the expense of the life and blood of the workers. Experience proves that that argument is fallacious. It can be proved that increases in wages have not actually increased the cost of production. For example, if we take the period from 1850 to 1900, there have been considerable increases in wages, but the cost of production was not as great in 1900 as it was in 1850. Again, when the first trade board was established in this country, in the chain industry, when the women were receiving the miserable pittance of 4s. to 5s. per week, for 60 hours' work, we were told by the employers in that trade, or, at any rate, by some of the employers, that if the workers' wages were increased, we should ruin that trade. The first trade board established a legal minimum wage of 11s. 3d. per week, and within 12 months of those rates being in operation there were nearly double the number of people in that industry. That conclusively proves that the workers begin to concentrate on efficiency, immediately you make them a little more satisfied.
    There has never been any legislation introduced in this House which has proved so successful as the legislation establishing trade boards. Never was a report issued which was so much out of gear with the evidence given than the Report of the Cave Committee on the working and effects of trade boards. If the hon. Members will read the evidence as well as the conclusions they will see that there is an unanswerable case made out for the extension of trade boards, because very few instances were proved, with any degree of accuracy, that trade boards have been responsible for curtail-
    642
    ing employment. We have about 60 trade boards covering something like 3,000,000 of workers, and I believe that if we test the amount. of unemployment in these trades with the amount of unemployment existing in those trades which do not come within the Schedule of the Trade Boards Act, we shall find that there is equally as much employment in the trades covered by trade boards as in those that are not.
    Why do we ask for the extension of the legal minimum wage? Precisely for the same reason that was advanced when the Trade Boards Act, 1909, was introduced; simply on the ground of the low wages prevailing in general industry to-day. The late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, speaking at Perth on the 5th June, 1903, made this statement:
    "In this country we know, thanks to the painstaking investigations of Mr. Rowntrce and Mr. Charles Booth, that there is about 30 per cent. of our population underfed, on the verge of hunger and doubtful from day to day of the sufficiency of their food. 30 per cent.? What is the population of the United Kingdom? 41,000,000. That means 12,000,000 of people on the verge of starvation."
    That condition of things is substantially true to-day. The Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson), speaking in the House on Monday night, quoted the agricultural rates of wages in some districts as 21s. a week. In some places he admitted that 25s. was being paid. Then ho quoted the case of a man, with a wife and four children, who, after a full week's work, received the miserable pittance of 20s. Even the Minister of Agriculture (Sir R. Sanders), speaking in the same Debate, said that so far as he could ascertain the average wage of the agricultural labourer was 27s. 9d. That figure represented an increase of 54 per cent. on the pre-War wages of the agricultural labourer. But the increase in the cost of living stands at 77 per cent. to-day, so that the agricultural labourers' wages are 25 per cent. less than they were in pm-War days. In the Black Country to-day the miner, after doing six days' work, receives the sum of £2 3s. There are thousands of labourers in the Black Country receiving 31s. for a full week's work, and thousands of women workers, not covered by trade boards, who are receiving 17s. a week. In the Midlands in 1912 we fought for 23s. To-day 31s. is being paid in many industries, while the

    643
    cost of living is 77 per cent. more than in pre-War days. There is a certain degree of well-being which it should be the main object of all statesmen to secure, and as the tendency of our wage system has always been to reduce the wages of the worker to the lowest level of life, this House should make it impossible for any employer to employ any man or any woman at less than a full living wage.
    Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I entered this House this evening intending to listen, to gain some enlightenment in connection with what I have always regarded as a most interesting and a most difficult question. I have listened to the two speeches which have been delivered, and have not heard much that will advance me towards a solution of the problem. Before I proceed to deal with any of the points raised by the two hon. Members, allow me to join with the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Sitch) in congratulating the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) on his most admirable and able maiden speech. I have said that I have gathered little which adds to my store of knowledge and enlightenment towards a solution of this problem. I will add, and the hon. Member for Bermondsey will credit me when I say, that I do believe that he has put before the House all that can be said in favour of a minimum wage. I think that towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman said that in a civilised and Christian country it. is not too much to ask for a minimum wage. I entirely agree. I am sure that on this side of the House there is not a single Member who yields an inch of ground to hon. Gentlemen opposite in their desire to see a minimum wage established. But on what conditions can you establish a minimum wage?
    I am ready to do it now, so far as I am concerned, in my industry, but what is the test, what is the effect upon the employment of the great mass of the people of this country? What is the use of establishing a minimum wage if the result is, first, that a great many people go out of employment, and, second, that the State soon runs dry of the funds which will enable it to make the necessary contribution to produce the minimum wage for all the people thrown out of
    644
    employment? Are you not going to consider it from that point of view? If you say "No," you bury your head in the sand. You will not consider the problem in all its bearings. The hon. Member for Bermondsey quoted the ease of Wages Boards in Australia. I remember following with close interest the introduction of Wages Boards in Australia. It was a very interesting experiment. I said at the time that there was no reason in the world why Australia should not have minimum wages, or why she should not be able to keep her people fully employed, because her conditions were vitally different from ours.
    Is it not a fact worth the recollection of hon. Gentlemen opposite that Australia, in the very early days, whenever a trade was not busy, put an embargo upon the entry into that country of the various people engaged in that particular type of industry? If plumbers were not fully occupied, plumbers were not allowed into Australia. If carpenters were not fully occupied, carpenters were not admitted into Australia. Of course, you can have a minimum wage in those conditions. But in this country, which is the great entrepot depôt for the labour of the world, it is an impossible proposition. Reference has been made to the United States of America. There again, though there are conditions totally different from those in Australia, you can do it, to a certain extent, because there you have a vast territory with great untapped resources and continually expanding trades. We have got a population of 45,000,000 on, what is little more, comparatively speaking, than a great mud patch. We have opened our gates to all the workers of the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think that I am substantially correct, making allowance for the temporary bar at the moment. We have had to receive the workers of the world into this country. The hon. Member for Bermondsey spoke about a reduction in the total of wages paid this year, compared with 1920–21. How do they compare with the total paid in 1914? I am not interested in disputing every point with hon. Members opposite. I am only interested in getting down to the truth of the thing. I have to find employment, whether we make or lose. It is not a question of looking at this matter from a selfish point of view.

    645
    The hon. Gentleman referred—in contradistinction to the drop in the total wages paid—to what he called the increase in dividends. Yes, Sir, but what about the difference in the price of money? What about the years during which no dividends were paid, while the wages had to be paid I [HON. MEMBERS: "Which years?"] I am not carrying the figures with me, but I think I could give to hon. Gentlemen opposite information on that point.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Has there been any year since 1913?
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: If hon. Gentlemen opposite like to have it, I can provide them with a long list of businesses—of manufacturing businesses which give a large volume of employment—in which no dividends have been paid.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Will you give the number of years?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, with pleasure. The wages bill is a first charge upon industry, and you cannot close your doors because trade is not prospering. I remember taking out some figures which have a relation to this matter, for a particular reason in connection with the Tariff Reform controversy. I was not then connected with politics, but I took out the figures for, I think, the years 1908–9 for the whole of the electrical manufacturing industry of this country, in which I was not interested except as a buyer—a prospective purchaser. I think I am right in saying that in 1908–9, out of the total share capital and loan capital, the whole of the money employed yielded, in the aggregates little more than 15s. per £100, but the wages had to be paid. These businesses were absolutely bankrupt, and employment in those trades was declining instead of expanding. I am not going to enter into the reasons, because that would be controversial, and it would be out of order, but there is the fact that under the capitalist system at that time the yield on capital in those particular industries was under 15s. per £100. Could any State support a system of that kind, and how is it possible in such circumstances to introduce a minimum wage? I submit that no case has been made out, on the arguments of hon. Members opposite, for the introduction of the minimum wage,
    646
    but I say, with deep sincerity, that when hon. Gentlemen opposite tackle this problem from the point of view of the requirements of the country, when they work out for us a system and show that it is stable and commercial and will make for the peace, health, contentment, and prosperity of the great mass of the workers of this country, they will have my wholehearted support. for any scheme of that kind.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I should like to be permitted in the first instance to associate myself with the remarks which have been made in reference to the very remarkable and effective maiden speech to which we listened a little while ago. Very few maiden efforts have been equal to that we had the pleasure of hearing from the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter). The hon. Member made it in introducing what seemed to me one of the most reasonable proposals imaginable. I do not think the hon. Gentleman who has just professedly replied to it really recognised what are the terms of the Resolution. If he reads it he will realise that the proposition it contains is very different from that which he attempted to overthrow. It is a curious coincidence that the very interesting Debate initiated from the same benches last night, and the Debate of to-night, should be so immediately associated with the year 1919. That was the year of large hopes and great expectations. The hopes have all proved to be vain and none of the expectations have been realised.
    Mr. J. JONES: You did not want them to be.
    Mr. THORNE: Some of us did want them to be, and I, for one, deeply regret that they have not been realised. I ask the House to look at the terms of the Resolution. It commences by saying:
    "In view of the practically universal acceptance of the principle that a living wage for all workers should he the first charge on industry—."
    I thought that was a very generally accepted proposition. Then it goes on to say, and this is the immediate point of the Resolution, not that here and now, we should decide upon a definite form of minimum wage all round, but that we should proceed with what the Government in 1919 proposed to carry into operation.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We have got rid of that Government.
    Mr. J. JONES: We have not got rid of you, yet.
    Mr. THORNE: Yes, you have got rid of the late Government, but I understand the present Government does not desire to be called "reactionary." I am going to put before the House what the late Government actually proposed, and to ask whether this Government accepts the proposition which was then laid down. If they do not accept it, I respectfully submit they will have to be regarded as a reactionary Government whether they like it or not, because in that year we had reached a definite stage. The Mover of the Resolution quoted the Preamble to the Bill which was then introduced and which he now desires to be reintroduced. It is a very remarkable Preamble and I venture to read it again to the House because many hon. Members are here who were not present when the Mover brought it before us. The Bill, I admit, was not passed into law but it distinctly represented the views of the then Government. It was introduced by very responsible men, one of them being still a very distinguished Member of this House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Sir R. Home) and another being Sir Auckland Geddes, a man who was held in the very highest esteen. Their names are on the back of this Bill which was a Government Measure submitted with all the responsibility of the Government after careful conference and report and with wonderful unanimity. These are the words of the Preamble:
    "Whereas it is expedient that minimum time rates of wages should be fixed for all persons of the age of 15 years and upwards, and should in the case of persons of the age of 18 years and upwards, be fixed at such amounts that all such persons whether employed at a time rate or according to any other method of remuneration will be afforded an adequate living wage."
    I ask whether the statement of opinion comprised in that Preamble, which evidently represented the view of the late Government, is the view now held by the present Government. We are entitled to know what is the view of the Government on a matter of such vital importance to the workers of the country. Surely the Government desire to make perfectly clear what they do stand for. Recent elections show that the people of this country are not at all sure what those views are. In regard to this particular
    648
    matter, I want to give the Government an opportunity of expressly stating what is their view. We have it here declared what the view of the Members of the Government was—I have read it out in that Preamble—and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary who, I believe, is going to speak in a few moments, to say whether the view then expressed by the late Government is the view now held by tie present Government. If it is not the view held by the present Government, then we are bound to accept it as a reactionary Government, going back on what has been accepted as a very important basis by the previous Government. If, on the other hand, the present Government do accept this proposal, I ask them why they should not accept the Motion before the House? That Motion is simply to ask them to re-introduce this Bill, which is to appoint a Commission to inquire into and decide what these rates should be, and the manner in which they should be brought into operation. That is all the proposal asks. We are not committed to anything whatever, except to the appointment of a Commission to consider this very vital question, and to submit its Report to the House for its decision in regard to the particular and precise proposals.
    In conclusion, this seems to me one of the most moderate and reasonable proposals that any body of men could bring before the House. It is suggested that hon. Gentlemen behind me are making constantly wild and absurd proposals; but when these hon. Gentlemen actually only propose, for the present consideration of the House, the very thing which the previous Government, with all its responsibility and authority, submitted to the House, I fail to see any ground for that charge against them. That Measure was introduced after that wonderful Conference to which reference has already been made. It was one of the most marvellous conferences, probably, ever held in this country. It raised hopes which many of us earnestly desired might have great fulfilment. If they had been fulfilled, the amount of unrest to-day would certainly have been very much less. This Bill was submitted to the House in August, 1919, and was withdrawn in December, 1919. I do not think we have ever heard of it since. If so soon to be done for, why was it begun? Why did

    649
    we have such a Measure, heralded as it was by the words of the Prime Minister, who was going about the country, as being one of the greatest Measures that the country was going to consider? Why was ail that done, if nothing was to follow? Therefore, I ask the hon. Member who is going to speak for the Government to answer the question I submit to him. Do they accept the opinion, agreed to and approved by the late Government, as set out in the Preamble I have read? If they do accept it, are they going to accept the Motion, and reintroduce, the Bill? If they do not accept this opinion, on this basis of action, I ask them to explain why they have gone back on a view previously held, and to tell us clearly and straightly what the Government attitude is going to be in regard to this important and vital matter of the minimum wage.
    Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: My hon. Friend who has just addressed the House has quite properly reminded us that this Motion is directed to a comparatively narrow point. The case for a Motion of this kind is in every way unanswerable. We have to keep in mind, first of all, the very serious cost which is involved to the State in low or utterly inadequate remuneration. Most hon. Members who have been brought into touch with the first effects of very low wages in this country will agree that it is very easy indeed to cross the border line into the arms of the Poor Law, on one side, and, on the other side, to do much to lower the level of remuneration as a whole. Those are two of the great dangers, from which we have suffered very seriously indeed. I think in all the circumstances, and particularly in industrial matters, as the investigation of the Industrial Fatigue Research Board has indicated, that the existence of a low rate of wages forms, in the aggregate, taking a long view of the problem, a very substantial burden in ill-health and lack of efficiency and earning capacity which the State cannot afford.
    I do not in any way accuse hon. Members opposite of desiring individually, or even generally, to maintain low rates of wages in this country; but I do quarrel very seriously with some of the arguments which they employ against a Motion of this kind. It is very often suggested, first of all, that we are not likely
    650
    to do anything to safeguard wages by a mere Act of Parliament; that the tendency, in fixing any minimum, will be to drive a certain number of people out of employment; or so to increase the cost of production in those trades in this country that the total volume of business to be done will be ultimately lowered, and the community as a whole will suffer. On that point we have already had very substantial evidence in regard to the regulation of sweated and other industries. A few years ago, Mr. R. H. Tawney, a very distinguished member of our party, who was, I think, a candidate on two occasions for election to this House, made an inquiry into the results of minimum-wage scales in certain trades in the Midlands and elsewhere. He proved that not, only had the health of the workers very greatly improved, and not only had their remuneration been increased, but the cost of production, and the general efficiency of the industry as a whole, had been very greatly improved. In other words, we are simply founding our arguments on the well-known economic truth, that cheap labour is, in the long run, the dearest of all, and that is the strong point behind our case now.
    Other hon. Members have suggested that this is the wrong way to tackle the problem. They have said that this is only adding another device to wage regulation in Great Britain, and that we are not getting nearer to that day when remuneration will be related strictly and closely to what the industry, as a whole, is actually turning out or doing. I entirely agree that a great deal of our wage regulation at the present time is in very serious chaos. Many hon. Members, I am afraid in all parts of the House, take the view, for example, that we have solved the wages problem, temporarily at least, when we adjust wages to the cost of living. I confess I have never been satisfied with that basis in any shape or form. There is, no doubt, a rough and immediate justice in the system; but quite obviously the defect is this, that we are seeking to relate wages to some set of general conditions which may be influenced by conditions in other countries, and by international problems—a set of conditions in the cost of living which, in an individual industry, may have very little to do with the strength or weakness of the industry at all.

    651
    While I agree, of course, that adjustment must take place comparatively soon, there is no doubt that in the process much hardship and wrong will be involved.
    There is another criticism of that method of fixing wages which I think is far more important. If we take the ordinary process of fixing wages on the basis of cost of living and review that over a fair period several things will stand out. In the first place, the wages have generally toiled laboriously after the increases in the cost of living; in the second place, in many cases they have never been in keeping with the increase in the cost of living; and, in the third place, they have introduced a fixed or static element into British remuneration because the wage has just fluctuated with the change in the cost of living, and in many cases there has been no appreciable gain in the sums available for saving, or whatever the case may be, as far as large numbers of people are concerned. That is nothing more than a temporary solution of the problem. I wish to urge what I believe to be a very important part of the basis of a better wage system, not only as applied to this problem we are discussing to-night, but as applied to the wage system as a whole. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour), in the course of his speech against the Motion, referred to the United States of America, and said that there you had vast areas and, I presume, large-scale industry and other forces such as we have not, and he seemed to indicate that it was a little difficult to compare conditions in the United States with conditions in Great Britain.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: Due to the large natural resources which we have not behind our interests.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Taking even natural resources into account, let me give what I think is the reply. With all their faults in the United States, they have made a very definite effort in many departments of industry to introduce what is called, by I think an unnecessarily high-sounding title, scientific management. I dare not discuss that on this Motion cave to indicate that unless we as a country bend our minds to efficiency methods in industry there is no proper
    652
    way of safeguarding remuneration at all. That would be just as important if we had another economic order, because under a collectivist order it would be necessary to get the best from the whole of the people in the common interest just as I believe it is necessary that we should get the best to-day.
    Taking the question of remuneration, what is happening in many industries now? We are squandering millions of money every year in wasteful and unnecessary processes. Some of our recent investigations have shown that by the adoption of a mere rearrangement of tools, an adjustment of certain classes of machinery, of better methods of using raw materials, you can get far more out of industry and give the workers better remuneration. That is only one part of the problem, but there are others much more important. I take the view, however unpopular it may be in some quarters—I do not think on the whole it is when properly understood—that we must get remuneration down to the actual facts of industry itself. On that head we require far more publicity than we have at the present day. No doubt there has been an increase in the amount of light thrown on the actual position between profit and remuneration and what is set aside for the replenishment of plant, but a very great deal of our difficulty in Great Britain turns on the simple fact that we do not actually know what is happening in important departments of industry at the present day. I think we must get the facts. Both sides, as long as the existing order lasts, are entitled to the facts, and, what is more important, the community as a whole is entitled to the facts.
    Many hon. Members have attacked us because in all wage discussions, they say, for the most part we have opposed any method of payments by results, or scientific management, or any device which was going to place remuneration strictly on what industry was doing. The reply to that is, I think, comparatively simple, and perhaps to a large extent the opposition is justified. Even if we agree that these scientific methods must come, look at the experience of many of them in the past. The offer has been made to working men and women to adopt a certain system. They have been promised a

    653
    basic rate. They were offered a return over and above the basic rate in respect of any extra effort they made. They made the response, they did their very best, the production was increased, and in many cases the rates were immediately cut. That tended to a large extent to knock the heart out of any co-operation in this matter. In the second place, it has been urged that such a system goes a long way to undermine the organisation which working people have built up, and, above all, the collective bargaining on which they depend. My reply is that many of these schemes have concentrated far too much on the individual workman or work-woman, and that far greater efforts should have been made to try to work a collective or overhead system which was more democratic, and which approached more closely to that team-work which I believe to be an essential and important part of industrial progress. These things are worthy at the present time of the very closest investigation, but I agree it is impossible to get the co-operation of many men and women in the preliminary inquiry because they have no guarantee that this will not be used to their disadvantage.
    My suggestion is, in any wages problem, that if you can arrive at an understanding with the masses and say to them, "There will flow to you a full and adequate participation in the fruits of every improvement brought about," you have changed the situation. But it must not he a mere promise; it must be a firm guarantee. Let me add that, having regard to the developments that are taking place in the United States of America, to the changes which have come in industrial organisation on the Continent, and to the greater changes still when we have patched up the European situation, I think the trade of this country will be exposed to still keener competition. I do not want to see the remuneration of the masses decline; I want to see it largely increased. I am hound to add, however, honestly and frankly, that I do not think it is going to be safeguarded and increased until they get a fair show in the introduction of the efficiency methods I have tried to explain.
    Sir MARTIN CONWAY: My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. C. Thorne) stated what is
    654
    a fact, that hon. Members opposite are often accused of constantly raising, on behalf of the poorer classes of the people, complaints of their conditions and their troubles, and not suggesting remedies. I hold that it is no business of hon. Members opposite, or of any of us, to suggest remedies. We are sent to this House, primarily to state grievances, and it is for the Government of the day to devise remedies. Hon. Members opposite are perfectly fulfilling their function when they bring before us repeatedly, as they do, the condition of the people whom they represent. They are there to tell where the shoe pinches, and that is the purpose of Parliamentary discussion. I therefore hold that this subject, which has been raised for discussion this evening, is one which they were eminently right to raise. It is certainly true that we ought, if we can, to find some method of providing a minimum wage for every person engaged in industry. That is the ideal at which we ought to aim, but consider the logical result of that. Let us take the whole life-history of a working man. If he be the offspring of parents who are very poor, he, is born partly at the expense of the State, he is nurtured partly at the expense of the State, he is educated at the expense of the State; it is claimed that when he cannot find work he should be maintained at the expense of the State, and that when he reaches old age he should still be maintained at the expense of the State
    That is a very good and admirable ideal, and I say nothing against it as an idea!. But what does it involve? It involves that the State should have something to say to his coming into the world [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!"] If the State is to be responsible for all its citizens from the cradle to the grave, it must have something to say to their coining into the world, and that is rather a difficult proposition, but it is logically involved in all these assumptions. At the present time we are often told—we have been told it to-night—that there are 45,000,000 people in these islands. I understand that last year the population of this country increased by 500,000. I have been told that for every 125,000 workmen who by age or death pass out of industry in a given year, 250,000 come in. It is obvious that that process cannot be continued

    655
    without limit, and at the same time this other ideal be maintained. You cannot do it. It happens that we inhabit, not a mud-bank, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) described it, but a very admirable, and charming, and in many places exceedingly beautiful country, but it is a small country, and I am told that the utmost population that it could maintain without importation from abroad is something like 20,000,000. The remainder must be maintained by foreign trade, by our exports sent out to pay for the necessary imports for raw materials and food, without which we cannot live, and there is an obvious limit to what Can be done in that way under present conditions.
    After the Napoleonic wars the condition of England was, I think, worse, if possible, than it. is now, and it continued very bad for several years. What was it that ultimately put us again on our feet? It was mainly the introduction of railways, it was the enormous amount of work that was involved in covering this country with a network of railways, it was that great revolution in transport, and we have got to have some similar great addition to our resources in order to bring us through the present time. Our present industrial systems, inventions, knowledge, science, organisation, are practically, I think, doing all they can. They are being worked in the best possible manner that we have devised for the support of our people. It is not enough. We want greater wealth. It is easy to say that there is wealth to spare at the top and that there is poverty at the bottom. That is certainly true. In every society there is a scum and also some dregs. If we could get off the scum and employ what we have got to dissolving the dregs it would be a good thing, but unfortunately it is a process that passes the skill of man to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Try Socialism!"] That would not do it either. We have got, in some way or another, to increase the wealth of the country. How can that be done? There is only one way in which it can be done. I am tired always of hearing in this House and outside about capital and labour—capital, capital, capital, and labour, labour, labour—as though that were the whole business. The thing that makes capital of any
    656
    value and that enables labour to have any worth is intelligence.
    Mr. J. JONES: Do not waste it.
    Sir M. CONWAY: You cannot waste it. You cannot get enough of it, and when you have got it, you cannot waste it. It will not be wasted. It is one thing that will always find a use and always bring a return. What we have to arrive at is a greater power of invention, a greater skill, a greater number of fully educated men of science, and, if possible, to find geniuses in that line. It is only by that method that you can add quickly to the wealth of the country. Industry stands, not on two legs, but on three. It stands, not on the two legs of capital arid labour, but on the three legs of capital, intelligence, and labour. Capital and labour without guiding and governing intelligence, without a continually increasing invention, without continually increasing discoveries, without continually increasing organisation, directed always by increasing skill—if you let that process drop for a single year, back you go, instead of forward.
    We are a nation that depends as no other country in the world depends upon the co-operation of those three legs for our position. We depend upon having the co-operation, not of capital with labour, but of capital and labour with intelligence, with discovery, with science. Everything that you can do to increase the highest—not the average, but the very highest—inventive skill tends to increase the wealth of the country and brings nearer the time when we should not merely have a minimum wage, but a very much bigger minimum wage than anybody can dream of now. The possibilities of wealth, the possibilities of production, which lie before us, which the intelligence of man is capable of arriving at when thoroughly elaborated and directed, are without limits. Just as in the past, in the 19th century, the discoveries and inventions of our highest and most intelligent class—a very small number—dragged us out of the rut and misery that followed the Napoleonic Wars, so I make no doubt that in the next 20 years, if we pursue the course of favoring and assisting the development of science, science will be our saviour, and will bring us to a more happy and prosperous position than we can dream of now.
    Mr. LINFIELD: I can associate myself in very few words with the Motion so ably moved by the hon. Member for Bermondscy (Dr. Salter). I do not think there will be any objection to the terms of this Motion even on the other side of the House.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Oh, yes, there will be.
    Mr. LINFIELD: Up to now there has been no serious objection to the terms of the Motion. All criticism has been directed to the view that trade will be worse rather than better if a Motion of this kind can be brought into effect. Precisely the same arguments were used when the question of child labour was before this House. Precisely the same arguments were used when the question of the reduction of hours was before this House. Precisely the same arguments were used when any question of increase of wages was before this House. Yet it seems passing strange that the late Government made a proposal of this sort, which, I have no doubt, was received with cheers by hon. Gentlemen opposite—a proposal that had attached to it the names of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir Auckland Geddes. At that time hon. Gentlemen opposite recognised the need for some such step to be taken. Why this marvellous change of attitude? The change in Government surely cannot account for it. Many of the Members of the Government to-day were Members of the Government at that time when the Government brought in those proposals, so that; it cannot be a question of change of Government. I am very much afraid that it is the quarter whence these proposals come that frighten hon. Gentlemen opposite, and yet I cannot help but think that if the Government had listened morn sympathetically to proposals made by Members on this side of the House, they would not be in the position they are to-day. It is becoming increasingly evident in one respect on one matter at all events, that the Government are listening very intently, and will probably move in the direction of suggestions made on this side of the House.
    10.0 P.m.
    I really rose for the purpose of calling attention to the case of the agricultural labourer. Before the War the wage of the agricultural labourer was 17s. 6d. a week, inclusive. The late Mr. Will Crooks brought a Motion before the House
    658
    before the War for a minimum wage of 30s., and a corresponding wage in the rural areas. The wage of the agricultural labourer to-day is being reduced to 21s. a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where"] In Bedfordshire and in Norfolk, where there is a strike raging against a reduction from 24s. to 21s. a week. I say with great respect—and I am hoping to see hon. Members opposite agree with me—that that is a scandal. I do not want to raise any antagonism on the benches opposite, where, no doubt, Members have as much humanity as Members on this side, but I do respectfully suggest that they are too ready to approach the question from a party point of view rather than from the humanitarian point of view. Agriculture is undoubtedly bad. The Government have suggested an inquiry into it. I want to suggest that that inquiry should begin at the bottom and not at the top, and that the first charge on the land should be the wage of the worker. The farmer, undoubtedly, would come next. There is another point of view, and that point of view is the future of this country. We cannot afford that our working-classes should be underpaid, underfed, and badly housed. We cannot build up a great Empire—if that is what hon. Members opposite want—in such conditions as these. The great British Empire does not depend on armies and navies or vast possessions. The greatness of an empire depends on a contented peasantry and contented workers, and I invite hon. Members opposite to co-operate in a matter of this kind. I have no doubt that on the election platform, if not here, we all have the well-being of the worker at heart—at all events, we say we do. Let hon. Members put these principles into practice. The Motion of my hon. Friend is merely asking the House to do exactly what their own Government proposed to do in 1919, and I ask hon. Members how they can possibly go into the Lobby and vote against a Motion that has received the assent of eminent men whom they would like to see sitting on the Front Bench to-day.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, certainly not.
    Mr. LINFIELD: I think the right hon. Member is only speaking for himself.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Not at all.
    Mr. LINFIELD: If that be the case, surely Members are not going to eat their own words of a year or two ago, and walk into the Lobby against such a reasonable Motion, which merely sets up an inquiry.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Major Boyd-Carpenter): For the few moments that, with the permission of the House, I shall have the opportunity of replying to what has already been said, I should like at the outset to say that I suppose all of us, to whatever party we belong, will agree that this particular question of a national minimum wage has been, and is to-day, one of the most absorbingly interesting questions of our modern social life, and whatever difference of opinion there may be, I think we shall, when we come down to consider matters, equally agree that it is not want of will, but the appreciation of many real arid practical difficulties that stand in the way of its realization. Before I say anything about that I would like, with great respect, to congratulate the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) on the way in which he introduced his Motion. I think we all agree it was a movie; and a very sincere speech. It brought out the tragedies of the position which are well known to us in this House, because we are dealing with it in our different spheres and coming daily in contact with this matter. At the same time I should like to say something about his reference to the establishment of a national minimum usages in the Colonies and in other countries. I do not think that he was entirely accurate. They have had Trade Boards established in the various State Governments of Australia. They had them established in Canada, and no doubt in many other countries. I may, however, remind him that when they tried after the Royal Commission of 1920, to establish in New South Wales a national minimum wage it completely broke down in operation, and it has not again been put into effect because of the practical difficulties which were realised. It has been given up and, so far as I know, they are not even suggesting that it should be brought back into practice.
    Dr. SALTER: Was that a minimum flat rate?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: It was a flat rate in that case.
    Dr. SALTER: I have not for one moment suggested in this Resolution, nor in my speech, that we were asking for a flat rate.
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: If the hon. Member will allow me to continue he will see where I was coming to. Therefore, on the very question of a national minimum wage where it has been attempted it has failed. I venture to suggest that what the hon. Gentleman was referring to was the existence of Trade Boards. The value of Trade Boards has been recognised by hon. Members opposite in the various speeches which they have made. Most of their arguments have been addressed to the value of Trade Boards as affecting wages rather than to the words of the Resolution relating to a national minimum wage. I should like also to refer to some remark which fell from the lips of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. G. Thorne). He inquired what had happened, why we really had not carried out the original proposal of the, Government of 18th August when they presented a Bill to this House establishing a Royal Commission of Inquiry into this matter? I have read the speeches of hon. Members on many occasions, the speeches denouncing what they call inheritance, and I have never yet understood that any Government is supposed to accept the inheritance of its predecessors.
    Mr. J. JONES: They inherit the salaries, anyhow!
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The hon. Member for Silvertown is incorrect. I have no salary.
    Mr. JONES: You got a rise.
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: And some people get a fall! But the real thing is this: it is quite absurd to reproach us for not pursuing the action of the late Government in presenting this particular Bill again to Parliament. Why? A good deal of water has run under the Thames bridges since then, and the curious fact is that since 1921 the General Council of the Trade Union Congress themselves having considered this matter of the national minimum wage after the Cardiff Conference, passed a resolution to the effect that the Committee was diametri-

    661
    cally opposed to the establishment of a national minimum wage. The conclusion was this—I note the hon. Member for Bermondsey shakes his head—I am quoting from the Report of the proceedings of the 54th Annual Trade Union Congress at Cardiff, pages 215–16, which reads as follows:
    "That in the Committee's view a single national minimum wage is impracticable. Legislation other than for particular industries could not he profitably pursued at the present juncture. A special congress as suggested in the Cardiff resolution is not advisable."
    What does that mean? In effect it means this: a recognition of what we say to-day, that the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider this matter is entirely unnecessary, because the Trade Boards, so far as they are in existence to-day, are fulfilling the function for which hon. Members have been pleading. There is the equally curious fact which the hon. Member for Bermondsey did not refer to: I mean the Report of the Cave Committee, which is also diametrically opposed to this. In Clause 51 of that Report, a Report which recognised the value of Trade Boards, and equally recognised the fact that there might be some measure of justification for the accusation that they had affected employment in this country, but equally recognising the value of Trade Boards—that Report, I say, was diametrically opposed—and this was a unanimous Report—to the establishment of a national minimum wage. The words are these:
    "In some cases proposals for the repeal of the Trade Boards Act wore accompanied by the suggestion that there should be substituted for it legislation providing for a national minimum wage to be payable in all trades alike. The Minister for Labour the right hon. G. H. Roberts, in moving the Second reading of the Bill of 1915, pointed out the grave difficulties which lie in the way of any proposal to fix a national minimum wage for all trades, and the evidence given before us strongly supports the opinion then expressed."
    And they thus end:
    "Recent Australian investigations are understood not to be favourable to the proposal. We, therefore, reject this proposal, and are of opinion that where minimum rates are required they should be determined with reference to the circumstances of each trade affected—."
    Dr. SALTER: That is exactly what I was arguing.
    Mr. J. JONES: The Under-Secretary is talking to his brief.
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER:
    "Not on a national basis."
    The Resolution of the hon. Member calls attention to the national minimum wage. I have been attempting to point out, evidently with little effect on hon. Members, that the national minimum wage has been turned down by various bodies of opinion in this country, including the Trades Union Congress General Council, the Cave Committee—[An HON. MEMBER: "And by the whole of us on these Labour benches!"]—and the suggestion of the hon. Member to-day is really that of the recognition of the value of Trade Boards. Instead, however, of asking for a new Trades Boards Bill for the extension of the powers of these Boards and a plea for their establishment in industries where they do not exist, he asks that something else should be done, and that a Bill introduced to establish a Royal Commission for a general consideration of the whole matter. That is a totally different thing. In the opinion of those with whom I am associated for the moment, it is undesirable, in view of the opinions expressed upon the subject in the reference which I have made, and equally because we believe that as regards the existing Trade Boards they are functioning well, and they have met the very points which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite. We do not believe that there is the slightest necessity, when the Trade Boards system is developing, to ask for a Royal Commission to consider from a large and broader aspect something else which we believe to be adequately done by the existing powers under the Trade Boards Act. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that there are no difficulties in this. matter, but I think there are. You can only have a satisfactory solution of this question when you base it upon certain defined principles. If you ate going to have it, is it going to be on the subsistence basis only, or is it to be on the family basis? Are you going to say, for example, that a bachelor is going to be placed in exactly the same position in this matter as a married man with three children? [Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members not to continue interrupting. The

    663
    House cannot come to a reasonable decision on this question if there are continual interruptions.
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I want to know is there to be any consideration in the value of output. A question has been asked as to whether the trade could bear the rate of wages laid down or not, and the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Sitch) said that if a trade or industry could not bear the rate recognised as a subsistence wage then that industry should perish. I think that is a very severe thing to say, and I do not think it is altogether wise, because if the industry perishes because it is unable to bear the burden of the rate of wages imposed there will be still more unemployed. In this matter we have to be somewhat of a practical nature. We all admit that in many industries the wages paid are not what we should like to see, and we are all animated with the idea that so far as possible, without destroying the industry, wages should be increased up to a level that would be recognised as sufficient to give comfortable conditions and happier surroundings. Some of us on this side of the House do not believe that any attempt to upset existing circumstances in the way suggested would render the lot of these people any better. You would not improve or benefit them, but in our opinion you would be more likely to destroy any opportunity of making things better. Therefore we must look at this matter in that light. After all the hon. Member who introduced the Motion said he was not out for a moment to create a revolution or to destroy the fabric of society. We thank him for that, but at any rate we must look at this question really from the point of view of what can be done with an industry without destroying that industry, and we must arrive at a basis for our calculation upon some defined principle. Is the definition to be subsistence, and if so is it to be the subsistence which one would say a bachelor was entitled to OT that which a married man should have? Is it to be according to age? Is it to be according to occupation? Is it to be according to sex? All these things create difficulties. It would be quite impossible under existing circumstances to arrive at any very sane conclusion as to what should be the basis, however much we may desire that such a basis should be reached.
    664
    These are practical difficulties which it is useless for those who are really interested in trying to find a solution for this problem to ignore. The Trade Boards to which reference has been made, and Lord Cave's Committee, distinctly contemplated districts for the operation of the existing Trade Board or of any new ones that might be created. That, again, in general application, would be a difficult problem, very difficult indeed, and it is something that would have to be considered when you are talking of a national minimum wage, and when you are asking for a Bill to be brought in to establish a Royal Commission. Whatever there is to be said for such a Royal Commission to make a general inquiry, for the moment it is not regarded as desirable, and we do not believe that in its essence it is entirely necessary. The whole argument of hon. Members opposite has really had reference to the operations of the Trade Boards, and their references to the Dominion have also been in relation to Trade Boards. It is the same in this country. From a practical point of view, what benefit would accrue to anyone in this country, at the moment, when the whole arguments have been directed to the efficacy or efficiency of the work of the Trade Boards all working on a wide scheme of general application, when everyone in this House, and all those interested in social matters, feel that the success or failure of those Boards will be the one factor which will decide as to future operations? It seems to be somewhat unnecessary, and for my own part I think the difficulties—to some of which I have referred—will be found really overwhelming. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the success of the Trade Boards, and I hope in due course we may have a new Trade Boards Bill introduced which will receive the support of hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Would it increase the number?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The question whether the number should be increased or not is hardly the point at issue. Trade Boards have, undoubtedly, as admitted by hon. Members opposite, contributed very largely towards ameliorating the lot of the people. If that is so, and if it has been recognised by hon. Members—if these Boards are in

    665
    operation to-day and doing good work, and if, as we all admit, their establishment was, in itself, an experiment, which Lord Cave's Committee rightly considered has been a justifiable experiment—why should we do anything more than watch them, as we all hope they may prove in practice a greater success than they have been? It would be perfectly futile to embark upon larger operations, which really can have no material effect in bettering the lot of those whose existence is guided by, and whose wages are governed by, the decisions of the Trade Boards of this country to-day. There is no innate hostility on the part of the Government to inquiries into trade conditions and wages in any sphere throughout this country, because they have far too much sympathy with the needs of the people for that; but they think it is entirely undesirable, as it is unnecessary, in existing circumstances, to bring in a Bill to establish a Royal Commission, giving a larger scope of investigation, it is true, which in normal circumstances might be useful, but which in existing circumstances is unnecessary and premature, and is, from our point of view, to be deplored rather than welcomed.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I think I can congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary upon having taken up so much of his speech in giving convincing support in favour of this Motion. Towards the end of his speech he enumerated quite a number of practical difficulties, all, I think, closely related to the subject of the Motion; but, surely, the more of those practical difficulties he enumerates, the stronger is the argument for the inquiry for which the Motion asks. The strong point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was that it is not desirable to take the step suggested in the Motion at the present moment. What is it that he considers undesirable? First of all, we declare, or we ask the House to declare, that, in view of the practically universal acceptance of the principle, a living wage for all workers should be the first charge on industry. Is it undesirable to make that declaration at this moment? In view of the large measure of agreement with respect. to the advisability of fixing legal minimum time rates of wages, is it undesirable that we should make that declaration?
    666
    Who are the workers that are most affected if we refuse to make such declaration? May I remind the House that this Motion is not concerned with the great bodies of highly organised workers? They can look after themselves; they have the power of organisation behind them, and sometimes they find it essential, because of the resistance to their most reasonable demands, to use the power of organisation. Many of us wish that Parliament would give them greater assistance, and thus avoid their having to have recourse to the use of the terrible weapon of industrial warfare, It is not these highly organised workers for whom we are pleading in this Motion; it is the vast body of miscellaneous workers, in many cases outside the great trade unions, and I may go further and say, outside the Trade Boards system. It is the vast number of women workers who suffer very often because of the miserable pittance they receive for the work they are called upon to do. Then there is a third very important category, and that is the agricultural workers. It has been declared over and over again from this Front Bench by prominent members ea the late Government that it was well-nigh impossible for the agricultural workers by the power of organisation to obtain anything like a reasonable and living standard of wage, and so we ask that we should make this declaration on behalf of those large categories of workers that I have named, and the only answer we have from the Government is that it is not desirable that we should make this declaration at the present moment. The Parliamentary Secretary, I hope unintentionally, took a very unfair advantage of a quotation from the report of the Trade Union Congress, and he fastened his observations on to the words at the opening of our Resolution. The title is National Minimum Wage—" to call attention to the question of a National Minimum Wage "—and he quoted that in support of his contention that he was justified in quoting the Trade Union Congress report. But he might have read the Resolution. He might have gone into the operative part of the Resolution and not the title. What does the operative part of the Resolution declare in two places? Not for a national minimum wage as ho interpreted it. That is the mere title. It is used in this sense, that it would

    667
    be a legal wage, but it is not a flat rate, and therefore is not a national minimum wage in the sense that the Parliamentary Secretary interpreted it. It is time rates of wages, and all that we are asking is that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into and report upon legal time rates of wages, an entirely different thing from the national minimum wage that he put forward in his argument.
    I should like to refer to another point that the Parliamentary Secretary made. He asked over the Table whether we thought the present Government had to accept the inheritance of the late Government. I am going to try to show that there are many reasons why the public and those of us on this side of the House should expect them to accept a a good share of the responsibility for the late Government. After all, what was the late Government constituted of? We have only to look along that bench and we look into the faces of quite a number of right hon. Gentlemen who held important offices in the old Government—that is, those of them who have been privileged by the electors to get here. [An HON. MEMBER: "How about Widnes?"] I am quite prepared to accept the challenge. I only had one try. Some had two tries, and there is no telling whether they will get here if they have a third try. So the Widnes argument is useless. We have a right to expect them to accept a share of the responsibility. As the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to quote from a very important Labour document, I am going to quote from a very important document associated with the late Government. I wish we could get all sections of the House back to the position we occupied at the early part of 1919. Some of the old Members will remember that in February, 1919, the late Government set up what was possibly the most important conference on industry ever held in this country. I have here a resolution that was unanimously adopted by 500 trades union and workmen's representatives, and by nearly 500 representatives of employers. It says:
    "This Conference, being of the opinion that any preventable dislocation of industry is always to be deplored, and in the present critical period of reconstruction may be disastrous to the interests of the nation, and thinking that every effort should be
    668
    made to remove legitimate grievances and to promote harmony and good will, resolves to appoint a joint Committee, consisting of equal numbers of employers and workers, men and women, together with a chairman appointed by the Government, to consider and report to a further meeting of this Conference on the causes of present unrest and the steps necessary to safeguard and promote the best interests of employers, workpeople and the State, and especially to consider (1) Questions relating to hours, wages and general conditions of employment; (2) Unemployment and its prevention; and (3) The best method of promoting cooperation between capital and labour."
    That committee appointed its joint committee. I happened to be chairman of the workmen's side of the committee. We sat always day by day for some weeks, and then we reported. I have often said that, in my judgment, that joint Report, with its unanimous recommendations, unanimously accepted when presented to the great conference of nearly 1,000, representatives, held in the Central Hall at Westminster, was the most remarkable document that has ever been produced by such a body in this or any other country. I will now quote the ex-Prime Minister, and may I say that the ex-Prime Minister, when the Report was brought to his notice, accepted the same on behalf of the Government.
    Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Not on behalf of this Government.
    Mr. HENDERSON: My hon. Friend need not be so hasty in telling me that it. was not accepted for this Government. Let me say that the chief lieutenant of the Government for which the Report was accepted is the present Prime Minister, and I believe the present Minister of Labour held a very important office at that time.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I was not in office at that time.
    Mr. HENDERSON: My right hon. Friend says he had not the robe of office at that time. At any rate, he occupies that office now, and he is filling an office which was then occupied by one of the Ministers to whom I shall refer. Let me read the first clause in the very important letter sent to the Conference by the late Prime Minister:
    "I have read the Report of the Committee of the Joint Industrial Council with very great interest. It seems to me to be

    669
    an excellent piece of work, considering the short time at the disposal of the Committee. I welcome it, especially as it shows what can be done when the representatives of the workers and the employers come together."
    Now, I am going to quote the then Minister of Labour, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government—
    "It was his duty to explain to them—"
    that is, to the Conference—
    "the position of the Government. He had read to them the letter of the Prime Minister, and he had explained the awkward circumstances in which they stood to-day by reason of his absence. It was the most momentous document which had been presented to the country in a long number of years, and so far as he was concerned they might take it he would not be there that day if he did not believe that the principles in the Report would receive without delay the favour of the Government."
    Again I would remind the House that that included the favour of the present Prime Minister and a large number of his colleagues. He also said, and this is the point which I want the House to note:
    "They made recommendations with regard to Trade Boards. The Ministry of Labour at the present time had been expediting with all the energy in its power the setting up of Trade Boards."
    The Parliamentary Secretary expressed the hope that when the Government introduced the legislation on trade boards we would give support. If it is going in this direction, yes. If it is departing from the principles laid down in this document I can promise him all the opposition which we are capable of offering. The ex-Prime Minister stated, as I have good reason to know:
    "Your work is being closely watched."
    Then he went on to say:
    "As regards wages I accept the principle "—
    This is very important
    "that minimum rates of wages in all industries be made applicable by law. The question of the best method of doing this however is complex and full of difficulties "—
    That is our case. That is why we want the Commission,
    "and I do not think that it would be possible to frame legislation until a scheme for carrying out the principle of minimum rates had been fully worked out. I therefore gladly accept your suggestion that the Government should in the first place set up a Commission with wide terms of reference to report on the whole matter."
    670
    It was opportune—that was the argument we have heard to-night—to make such a declaration in 1919. It is inopportune to put this recommendation into operation in the early part of 1923. The delay in dealing with these recommendations has had a most disastrous effect. In an experience of 40 years of trade unionism I have never known anything to have such a disastrous effect as the failure on the part of the late Government to put its declaration, as recorded in a letter from the late Prime Minister, into operation. On the two main issues to which they definitely committed themselves, first the hours, and second the minimum rate, they have failed to carry their own promise into effect and have disappointed the universal expectations which they themselves created. That is so far as the old Government is concerned. Now we learn from the Parliamentary Secretary that while it is desirable to do these things under different conditions, it is undesirable, in his judgment and in the judgment of the Government, to do them now. All I can say is that when it gets out to-morrow that the new Government is to maintain the indifferent attitude of the old, when it gets out that the present Prime Minister, who was a party to the ex-Prime Minister making these emphatic declarations, is changing his attitude, it will be most disappointing to multitudes of our working people.
    Last night we were debating a very important social question. Two weeks ago we were debating a similar question. One of the speakers towards the close of the Debate last night said that he intended to keep a record of all the questions that Labour introduced, and the cost that the schemes entailed. That was the attitude of the representatives of the Government. They said, in effect, "This means £20,000,000," or "This means £25,000,000," or "This means £50,000,000." [HON. MEMBERS" Hear, hear!"] I am glad to have that acknowledgment. What is the objection to-night? Is it a question of millions? We are sometimes charged with bringing in the most costly and most extreme proposals.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear!
    Mr. HENDERSON: I expected that from the right hon. Baronet. Everything that we do is extreme in his estimation. But in this case I should have thought

    671
    that he, as a very important employer of labour, would have supported us and would have said: "Yes, after all there is a little sweet reasonableness in the Labour party for once in its lifetime, and because of that I am going into the lobby with the Labour Members." All that we are asking the Government to do is to set up an inquiry with a view to ascertaining, not whether a flat rate is possible, but whether minimum rates in the respective industries are possible, and whether we have in existence proper machinery for applying those rates, and, if not, what machinery is necessary. In view of the fact that there is no expense worthy of the name involved in our proposal, I fail to see why the Government cannot accept the Motion. I hope they will give the House an opportunity, without putting on the Whips, to make a free declaration as to whether this Resolution ought to be put into operation immediately or postponed for an indefinite period.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have on more than one occasion voted with the Labour party. On those occasions the Labour party were right. But on this occasion the Labour party are wrong, and, therefore, I am unable to repeat the pleasant experiences of the past by voting with them. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down brought forward a very weak argument in favour of setting up an inquiry. We all know—it is not in any way a party question—what the setting up of an inquiry is. In nine cases out of ten, it means waste of time, and leads to nothing, and in nine cases out of ten it is set up in order to do that very thing. The right hon. Gentleman told us that, in 1919, when extremely foolish things were done, especially by the late Prime Minister, a Committee was set up, over which he presided. That Committee came to a unanimous conclusion, and submitted its Report to the then Government. Its Report was endorsed, with flattery, by the late Prime Minister and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. What has happened? Nothing at all? Then, why on earth set up another Committee to do exactly the same thing, and to encourage, in the minds of the workers, who do not quite understand Parliamentary procedure, a belief that something is going to be done?
    672
    It is too late to embark at any length upon the foolishness of the Motion. I think the hon. Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. G. Thorne) quoted what was done in 1919. Curiously enough, I have preserved, in a little case that I keep at home, a paper called "The Future," which was issued in 1919. I thought to myself, "Shall I bring it down to the House this evening?" Then I thought, "It is not worth while. I probably shall not have an opportunity of speaking." So I did not bring it, but I remember perfectly well a picture on the face of it. It was a picture of the late Prime Minister—I am sorry he is not in his place. The late Prime Minister, under his picture, said, "The old world must end. The misery which we have suffered in the old world must end, and a new world must be created, in which there will be no misery, no people sweated," etc. Sir Eric Geddes, who was also quoted by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, made a startling announcement. I read this to him in the House, with great satisfaction, on the Second Reading of the Railway Bill, in 1921. He informed us that he visualised the future, and this is how he visualised the future.
    Mr. G. THORNE: May I point out that I referred to Sir Auckland Geddes.
    Sir F. BANBURY: They are tarred with the same brush. He visualised the dock labourer in his garden in the country, with a telephone working to the docks, and a special train waiting for him—I am sorry the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is not here; she would be pleased at this—this was in order to prevent the dock labourer having to wait outside a public house. He would be digging in his garden, cultivating the soil, and he would receive a telephonic message that he was to come to work at the dock, and he would get into his special train and go off to his work. He also visualised factories in the country, and there, he said, the agricultural labourer was not fully employed. He thought the best way would be for him to work half a year on the land and half a year in the factories. There would be factories scattered over the face of the land and not in the towns. They would be in the country, with new lines

    673
    of railway to get out to them. Can you beat that? What is there in that doctrine
    which is worthy of consideration?
    Question put,
    "That, in view of the practically universal acceptance of the principle that a living wage for all workers should be the first charge on industry, and in view of the large measure of agreement with respect to
    the advisability of fixing legal minimum time rates of wages reached at the National Industrial Conference, this House urges the Government to proceed without delay with the Bill introduced by the Government of the day in 1919 constituting a Commission to inquire into and report upon legal minimum time rates of wages."
    The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 139.

    Division No. 28.]

    AYES.

    [10.55 p.m.

    Adams, D.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Potts, John S.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hancock, John George

    Price, E. G.

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

    Harbord, Arthur

    Pringle, W. M. R.

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Richards. R.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Richardson, R. (Moughton-le-Spring)

    Attlee, C. R.

    Hastings, Patrick

    Riley, Ben

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hay, Captain J. p. (Cathcart)

    Ritson, J.

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday. Arthur

    Roterts, C. H. (Derby)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hemmerde, E. G.

    Roberts, Frederick D. (W. Bromwich)

    Benn. Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Henderson, Sir T, (Roxburgh)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Berkeley, Captain Reginald

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

    Bonwick. A.

    Herrlotts, J.

    Saklatvala, S.

    Bowdler. W. A.

    Hill, A.

    Salter, Dr. A.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hinds, John

    Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

    Broad, F. A.

    Hirst. G. H.

    Scrymgeou, E.

    Bromfield. William

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Sexton, James

    Brotherton, J.

    Hogge. James Myles

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Brawn, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan. Neath)

    Shiiivvell. Emanuel

    Buchanan, G.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Buckle, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Burgess, S.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

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

    Sitch, Charles H.

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

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

    Smith. T. (Pontefract)

    Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

    Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

    Snell, Harry

    Biuton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Snowden, Philip

    Cairns, John

    Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

    Spencer. George A. (Broxtowe)

    Cape. Thomas

    Jowett, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Spencer. H. H. (Bradford, S.)

    Chappie, W. A.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Stephen. Campbell

    Charleton. H. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stewart J. (St. Rollox)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lansbury, George

    Sullivan, J.

    Collison, Levi

    Lawson, John James

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Leach, W.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lee, F.

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

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighlcy)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lewis, Thomas A.

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Dudgeon, Major c. R.

    Linfreld, F. C.

    Trevelyan, C. P.

    Duffy, T. Gavan

    Lort-Wllllams, J.

    Turner, Ben

    Duncan, C.

    Lowth, T.

    Walsh. Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Dunnico. H,

    Lunn. William

    Warne, G. H.

    Ede. James Chuter

    MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Edmonds, G.

    M'Entee, V. L.

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

    Edwards. C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    McLaren, Andrew

    Webb. Sidney

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

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow. Gnvani

    Weir, L. M.

    England, Lieut.-Colonel A,

    March, S.

    Westwood. J.

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

    Whentley, J.

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

    Maxton, James

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

    Foot, Isaac

    Millar, J. D.

    Whiteley, W.

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Morris, Harold

    Wignall, James

    Gosling, Harry

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Muir. John W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Murnin, H,

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Gray, Frank (Oxford)

    Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenall, T.

    Nichol. Robert

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)

    O'Grady, Captain James

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

    Groves, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wright, W.

    Grundy. T. W.

    Paling, W.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Guest. Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Phillipps. Vivian

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Phllipson, H. H.

    Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. T. Griffiths.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

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

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Baird, Rt Hon. Sir John Lawerence

    Benn, Sir A S. (Plymouth. Drake)

    Alexander. E. E. (Leyton, East)

    Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

    Bennett. A. J. (Mansfield)

    Alexander, Col. M, (Southwark)

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Ashley. Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

    Barnston. Major Harry

    Dlundell. F. N.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Reaburn, Sir William H.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Harvey, Major S. E.

    Raine, W.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Rawson, Lieut-Com. A. C.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

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

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Brown, Major D, C. (Hexham)

    Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

    Remer, J. R.

    Brown, Brig-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Rentouf, G. S.

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

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzory

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

    Bruton, Sir James

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)

    Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

    Button, H. S.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Cadogan, Ma|or Edward

    Houfion, John Plowright

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

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

    Russell, William (Bolton)

    Chad wick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hudson, Capt. A.

    Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hughes, Collingwood

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Hume, G. H.

    Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Sandon, Lord

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Simpson-Hinchclifie, W. A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

    Singleton, J. E.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Colvin, Brig,-General Richard Beale

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

    Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jarrett, G. W. S.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cope, Major William

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in.Furness)

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

    Johnson. Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

    Sparkes, H. W.

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

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Spender-Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H.

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

    Stanley, Lord

    Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Steel, Major S. Strana

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stott, Lt.Col. W. H.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Lougher, L.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Fawkes, Major F. H.

    McNelll, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Flanagan, W. H.

    Margesson, H. D. R.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Wallace, Captain E.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

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

    Galbralth, J. F. W.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Molloy, Major L. G. S.

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Gates, Percy

    Molson, Major John Eisdale

    Wells, S. R.

    Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Glbbs, Colonel George Abraham

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

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Gould, James C.

    Murchison, C. K.

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

    Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Whitla, Sir William

    Greaves-Lord, Walter

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

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. LeslieO.(P'tsm'th,S.)

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

    Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

    Winterton, Earl

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

    Wise, Frederick

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

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

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

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Yerburgh, R. D. T.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Paget, T. G.

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

    Pease, William Edwin

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Sir F. Banbury and Mr. G. Balfour.

    Halstead, Major D.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

    SUPPLY [1ST MARCH].
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution ' That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £813,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for sundry Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Grants-in-Aid.' "
    Question again proposed,
    It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and port posed.

    UNITED STATES CONSULATE (NEWCASTLE).
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
    Mr. ADAMS: In accordance with the Notice which I gave a week ago, I desire to draw the attention of the House to a matter of very considerable public importance, which indeed has assumed an international complexion, namely, the closing by the Foreign Office, on 1st September last., of the -United States Con-

    677
    sulate at Newcastle-on-Tyne. Six months have passed, and very material damage has been done to the trade and commerce of that great centre of population. The grounds upon which the Government took this extraordinary step were that the Consul or Vice-Consul at Newcastle-on-Tyne had been guilty of displaying an undue preference for American shipping lines. It was alleged that, before granting visas on the passports of intending travellers, they had made it a stipulation that such travellers should travel, not by the usual and, perhaps, more common routes of the English lines of steamers, but by American-owned vessels. The situation was that towards the end of July, or early in August, the American Government were notified that we would in 30 days withdraw the exequater of the Consul and Vice-Consul of Neweastle-on-Tyne. The American Government intimated to the Foreign Office that, as that was the first they had beard of these charges, they would prefer the status quo to continue while they made an investigation. In the absence of any further statement from the Foreign Office to America, that inquiry took place. Upon the 1st September, without any further warning, the Consulate was closed by the withdrawal of this authority from the Consul and Vice-Consul. Steamers which were awaiting the necessary permit were held up ill the river, a considerable number of emigrants also requiring authority were unable to proceed, and general dislocation and chaos ensued.
    The course pursued by the Foreign Office is altogether unprecedented in the history of this country. Lord Curzon has endeavoured to show by the correspond-once that was published a dab or two ago that there was some parallel between this case and what took place during the Crimean War. The offences charged against the British Consuls in the United States at that lime was that they were engaged in recruiting men front States which were not at war with the Powers with which Britain was in conflict. A totally different situation prevailed. The conviction it presented in the States and at Newcastle-on-Tyne—and I think the opinion of all the business men concerned—is that this was as high-handed as it was unprecedented on the part of the Foreign Office. This action, no doubt, was suitable to our Eastern Dependency, but it is considered in the North totally
    678
    unsuitable treatment towards the great and friendly Republic of the West. I have asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to justify, if he can, the conduct of the Foreign Office or some underling there. America, as I have observed from a visit there and from a perusal of the Press of that country, is convinced that great injustice was done to both Consul and Vice-Consul. I have it On the authority of persons on the spot that the Foreign Office, in order to bolster up a case against these men, sent men to the Newcastle Consulate who attempted again and again as bonâ fide travellers to inveigle both Consul and Vice-Consul into saying, "Well, you must travel by American lines before we grant you the necessary visas." In every case, according to the evidence which I have obtained, they were unable so to persuade either Consul or Vice-Consul.
    I desire to say, as a member of the commercial community of Newcastle, and so speaking, as I do on this occasion, as the Sheriff of that great industrial centre, that there was no more popular, urbane, W. inure willing member of that community than the Consul of the United States at. Newcastle-on-Tyne. The American Government asked very properly for the whole of the information upon which these charges were based. The Foreign Office refused that request. Eventually, the Government sent to the United States documents so emasculated as to names, occupations, addresses, and data, as to be valueless to the United States Commissioners for cross-examining the persons who alleged that visas has been refused to them. Naturally, that, great country was placed at a disadvantage and disability. However, America has caused three separate and independent investigations to be made. His Excellency the American Ambassador held the first and obtained local knowledge from individual traders and travellers both in America and in Britain. The next investigation was held by the Consul-General located in London. Not satisfied with this the United States Government sent a special Commission from Washington charged to obtain all the information possible upon this subject, and to take the necessary steps to deal with the officials concerned, if proved to be guilty. It is, nevertheless, a fact that although these Com-

    679
    Missions with all the evidence before them came to the conclusion that there was no justification for the charges which had been urged against their servants. I desire to say that the United States in this matter has acted with most commendable toleration. The proper method for the Foreign Office to have adopted was not to have arbitrarily closed the Consulate, but to have requested the United States to take the necessary steps to deal with these servants themselves.
    A Consul or Vice-Consul is not prohibited from giving advice. I am a traveller myself, and abroad I frequently go to our Consul who advises as to how to travel, what are the best railways, etc., and any other information required. British Consuls are certainly permitted to engage in other operations besides acting as Consuls for this country. Our local Press has, with considerable authority, stated with regard to this subject that Mr. Hughes deliberately withheld the publication of the documents which have recently appeared in the Press because he felt that if they were published before the negotiations regarding the funding of the debt to the United States had been completed there might have been considerable difficulty in completing such negotiations. I desire to give the Under-Secretary an opportunity of replying, but I wish to say that in Newcastle we cannot sit any longer in this intolerable position. Many thousands of pounds have already been lost to the city of Newcastle, much trade has been lost. People requiring visas have now to travel additional 200 miles. A leader of the Northumberland miners told me that he could not raise the money for his men to undertake a long journey of that wasteful kind. The Foreign Office has culpably blundered in this matter. The Foreign Office is the servant of this House, or it ought to be, and if we have an excellent case as we are advised, let the light of day be shed upon it. I have asked for the Papers to be laid on the Table of the House, but that has been refused.
    The longer we permit this impasse the worse it is for us. It is not an injury to the United States, it is an injury to our traders, our people, our travellers, and to all associated with the immense volume of trade which passes from the North of England to the United States.
    680
    We are the sufferers, and I say that: this state of affairs which ought never to have arisen—because even if the charges are accurate, it casts a grave reflection on the methods and conduct of the Foreign Office—should he ended at the earliest possible moment. I had a letter from an American trader the other day, who is very anxious that this matter should be brought to an end, and as it is rather in the vernacular it may be interesting—
    "It is a great pity to have so much trouble over such a little matter, especially between two nations who are allied and are supposed to act together like brothers in the rehabilitation of the world's peace. It is, I think, an inopportune time for anyone to rock the boat now. This little affair should never have reached such proportions, and it cannot be settled too soon."
    I ask the Foreign Office to take the necessary steps to satisfy the United States and the North of England, and have the Consulate opened forthwith.
    Mr. DOYLE: I am very glad my hon. Friend, by raising this question on the Adjournment, has been enabled to supplement the efforts I endeavoured to make in the last Parliament for the solution of this very disagreeable matter. I hope the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will be able to give such an explanation as will clear the matter up. I hope he will be able to do something to relieve the impasse which is causing a great deal of inconvenience to the citizens of Newcastle-on-Tyne.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am very glad indeed that the hon. Members have brought this matter forward, because I quite realise the feelings which they represent—very reasonable feelings—as I think I can assure them that the dissatisfaction which they say exists in the North of England is fully shared by the Government. The hon. Member who brought up the question, if I may say so, gave a rather coloured version, which I do not think is really borne out by the true facts of the case. I regret he should have allowed himself to use such a sneer against; the Secretary of State as to say that his conduct in this matter might have been proper if directed against one of our Eastern dependencies, but that it was out of place in dealing with a friendly nation and a great Ally. That is not the spirit in which this matter

    681
    should be approached. I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. He spoke, for example, of the Foreign Office having closed the Consulate and having done so in a very peremptory and high-handed manner. The Foreign Office never closed the Consulate. In fact they would have no power to close it, oven had they desired to do so. What they (lid de I will endeavour in a few words. to explain to the House. The hon. Member was quite correct in his statement as to the original cause of this difficulty. A complaint reached the Foreign Office from the Board of Trade. Of course, the Foreign Office itself would not have had cognisance of a matter of this sort. The trading community made representations to the Board of Trade and the Board of Trade passed them on to the Foreign Office, asking the Secretary of State to take such action as he could in order to prevent what was believed to be an improper use of the American Consulate to promote the interests of American, in opposition to and competition with British, shipping.
    The Foreign Office, of course, on that, felt it their duty to look into the matter, and they took such evidence as they could obtain, not by any means in the fashion ascribed by the hon. Gentleman, as if they had gone about fishing for evidence in a hole-and-corner way. As a matter of fact they had no difficulty in obtaining statements, some of which were sworn and some were not; but there is one unfortunate circumstance connected with the matter, I agree, and that is that the persons who gave the evidence did so only on the distinct assurance that their names would not be divulged. That evidence, being in the possession of the Foreign Office, left them in no doubt whatever, and I do not think that the House will have any doubt, that the consul—of whom I wish to speak with every possible courtesy, and whom I believe the hon. Member was justified in describing as, personally, most popular and agreeable, but that hardly affects the point—did use his position in order to promote, in opposition to British shipping, the interests of his own country.
    When that evidence was in the hands of the Foreign Office they, of course, communicated at once, with the British Ambassador in Washington, with whom they have acted throughout in complete
    682
    consultation, and the British Ambassador was instructed to make representations to the American Government. He did so. I am sorry that I have not more time than I have to go more fully into this matter, but it is not correct, as the hon. Gentleman stated, and, no doubt, thought, that the Government have refused information to the American Government. Quite the contrary. They placed in the hands of the American Government the evidence which was at their disposal, while, of course, in accordance with their pledge, withholding the names of the persons who had given it. As a matter of fact, that was a matter of very small consequence, because it could not possibly matter to the American Government whether documents of that sort were sinned by John Smith or Tom Jones. That was immaterial. The representative of the American Government was in this country and had an interview with one of the officials at the Foreign Office and we thoroughly believed an amicable compromise had been arrived at, because on 19th October, after the conversations that were held, a note was addressed to the United States Embassy enclosing a draft of identical instructions drawn up by these two gentlemen in agreement, which it: was proposed to issue to Consular officers in both countries in order to prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.
    It was agreed on behalf of both sides that if this course were adopted and these heist ructions were given to prevent it occurring again, we for our part would immediately drop, without prejudice to the principle, the charges which had been made against the American Consul and on the other hand, the United States Government would re-open the Consulate because it was the United States Government and not the Foreign Office that closed the Consulate. We thought that compromise had been happily arrived at but for reasons which I have never been able to find out, on the 9th November the United States Embassy presented a Note in which they refused to admit this suggested compromise, and took up the position that they would not reopen the Consulate unless we not merely consented to drop the charges, but withdrew them absolutely, and admitted that they had not been substantiated. That was a course which it was impossible for the Govern-

    683
    ment to take. We could not possibly have admitted that they were not substantiated, because, in our judgment, they were, and I do not see that the investigation which the American Government made really had very much to do with the case. Obviously the evidence they obtained in that way could only, so far as I see, have been negative evidence. Whatever evidence they obtained was to show
    684
    apparently that these gentlemen had not exceeded the rights of their position. But how does that affect the matter when we have in our possession conclusive evidence to show that they did?
    It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  WAR GRAVES.
  WAR GRAVES.
  MUNITIONS (CONTRACTS).
  MUNITIONS (CONTRACTS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (APPRENTICES).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (APPRENTICES).
  PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY.
  PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY.
  PERSIAN DATES.
  PERSIAN DATES.
  UNFIT HORSES (EXPORT).
  UNFIT HORSES (EXPORT).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EXPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA.
  EXPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA.
  COKE AND PIG IRON.
  COKE AND PIG IRON.
  EXPORT CREDITS (BRAZIL).
  EXPORT CREDITS (BRAZIL).
  WANSTEAD FLATS.
  WANSTEAD FLATS.
  PAUPER LUNATICS.
  PAUPER LUNATICS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  HINDLEY (MEDICAL OFFICER).
  HINDLEY (MEDICAL OFFICER).
  REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S REPORT.
  REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S REPORT.
  WORKHOUSE INMATES
  WORKHOUSE INMATES
  LONDON GOVERNMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  LONDON GOVERNMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION).
HOUSING.
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  BUILDING (COST).
  BUILDING (COST).
  SHEFFIELL IMPROVEMENT SCHEME.
  SHEFFIELL IMPROVEMENT SCHEME.
  HOUSING NEEDS.
  HOUSING NEEDS.
  OWNERS (POSSESSION).
  OWNERS (POSSESSION).
  SUSPENDED SCHEMES.
  SUSPENDED SCHEMES.
  NEW HOUGHTON, DERBYSHIRE.
  NEW HOUGHTON, DERBYSHIRE.
  NEW HOUSES.
  NEW HOUSES.
  BUSINESS PREMISES.
  BUSINESS PREMISES.
  HIGHER-GRADE HOUSES.
  HIGHER-GRADE HOUSES.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  SUBSIDENCE (ROADS).
  SUBSIDENCE (ROADS).
  WINDING ENGINEMEN.
  WINDING ENGINEMEN.
  EXPORTS.
  EXPORTS.
  MEDOMSLEY COLLIERY, DURHAM.
  MEDOMSLEY COLLIERY, DURHAM.
  CONTROL.
  CONTROL.
  1921 DISPUTE, GLAMORGAN.
  1921 DISPUTE, GLAMORGAN.
  IRON-ORE MINES, WEST CUMBERLAND.
  IRON-ORE MINES, WEST CUMBERLAND.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  JUVENILES.
  JUVENILES.
  ALLOTMENT CULTIVATION.
  ALLOTMENT CULTIVATION.
  LAPSED BENEFIT.
  LAPSED BENEFIT.
  EMIGRATION.
  EMIGRATION.
  REGISTRATION, DELPH.
  REGISTRATION, DELPH.
  NEWCASTLE CORPORATION (LABOURERS).
  NEWCASTLE CORPORATION (LABOURERS).
  CARDIG ANS HIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (EMPLOYÉS).
  CARDIG ANS HIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (EMPLOYÉS).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
EDUCATION.
  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  STATISTICS (YORKSHIRE).
  STATISTICS (YORKSHIRE).
  WEST HAM.
  WEST HAM.
  TRAINING COLLEGES.
  TRAINING COLLEGES.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS, WALES.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS, WALES.
  GOLD CURRENCY.
  GOLD CURRENCY.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY, SOUTHAMPTON.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY, SOUTHAMPTON.
  WOMEN CLERKS.
  WOMEN CLERKS.
  POLAND (FRENCH CREDIT).
  POLAND (FRENCH CREDIT).
  RATING (NECESSITOUS AREAS).
  RATING (NECESSITOUS AREAS).
  SLOUGH TRADING COMPANY.
  SLOUGH TRADING COMPANY.
  BRITISH DEBT (AMERICA).
  BRITISH DEBT (AMERICA).
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  WAR LOAN.
  WAR LOAN.
  RELIEF ADMINISTRATION.
  RELIEF ADMINISTRATION.
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  HEALTH AND EDUCATION.
  HEALTH AND EDUCATION.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  CIVIL SERVICE.
  CIVIL SERVICE.
  DEPENDANT'S DEATH (CANNOCK WORKHOUSE).
  DEPENDANT'S DEATH (CANNOCK WORKHOUSE).
  KEW CLAIMS AND RECORD OFFICE.
  KEW CLAIMS AND RECORD OFFICE.
ROYAL NAVY.
  FOREIGN SERVICE.M
  FOREIGN SERVICE.M
  DISABLEMENT PENSIONS, DOCKYARDS.
  DISABLEMENT PENSIONS, DOCKYARDS.
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE, FRANCE.
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE, FRANCE.
PEACE TREATIES.
  BRITISH ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
  BRITISH ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTE.
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTE.
  EASTERN GALICIA.
  EASTERN GALICIA.
  UNITED STATES (IMMIGRATION).
  UNITED STATES (IMMIGRATION).
  PRIVATE LETTERS (ENGLAND AND GERMANY).
  PRIVATE LETTERS (ENGLAND AND GERMANY).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  RUMANIA (BRITISH PROPERTY).
  RUMANIA (BRITISH PROPERTY).
  PENSION (10TH HUSSARS; E. IBBOTSON).
  PENSION (10TH HUSSARS; E. IBBOTSON).
  AIR TRANSPORT.
  AIR TRANSPORT.
  TRIAL BY JURY.
  TRIAL BY JURY.
  ABSENTEE VOTERS, KETTERING.
  ABSENTEE VOTERS, KETTERING.
  REGISTERED CLUBS.
  REGISTERED CLUBS.
  PALESTINE (JEWISH IMMIGRANTS).
  PALESTINE (JEWISH IMMIGRANTS).
  KENYA COLONY.
  KENYA COLONY.
  RUBBER SUPPLY.
  RUBBER SUPPLY.
POST OFFICE.
  PARCELS (CANADA).
  PARCELS (CANADA).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  BUILDINGS, BASINGSTOKE.
  BUILDINGS, BASINGSTOKE.
  COCKLES.
  COCKLES.
  BRITISH MUSEUM
  BRITISH MUSEUM
  GREENWICH PARK (WAGES).
  GREENWICH PARK (WAGES).
  ST. JAMES'S PARK KIOSK.
  ST. JAMES'S PARK KIOSK.
AGRICULTURE.
  CREDIT FACILITIES.
  CREDIT FACILITIES.
  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS
  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS
  CATTLE IMPORTS.
  CATTLE IMPORTS.
  MILK SUPPLY, SCOTLAND.
  MILK SUPPLY, SCOTLAND.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD KYLSANT.
Sir Owen Cosby Philipps, G.C.M.G., having been created Baron KYLSANT of Carmarthen, in the County of Carmarthen, and of Amroth, in the County of Pembroke—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SWANAGE GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

EXPLOSIVES BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Explosives Act, 1875, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Onslow).
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

HONOURS COMMISSION'S REPORT.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH LORD SOUTHBOROUGH rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Honours, to make some observations thereon, and to ask the Government whether they propose to introduce the legislation recommended therein. The noble Lord said: My Lords, His Majesty's Government probably have their minds full of home and hearth, and perhaps it is not a very opportune moment to ask them to apply themselves to such a minor matter as decorations, but the Question on the Paper has been before your Lordships for some time and I should like to discharge my mind of it. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that at a time of some acute political pressure a Royal Commission was appointed to advise on the procedure to be adopted in future to assist the Prime
260
Minister in making recommendations to the King of names of persons deserving special honour. The Royal Commission recommended that a short Act should be passed which would impose penalties on any person offering to become instrumental in the securing of an honour for another in respect of a money payment or valuable consideration. It also advised that the Act should impose penalties on any person promising payment or consideration in order to receive an honour. I think that the first category of persons was described by the Royal Commission as "touts." The Question on the Paper invites His Majesty's Government to say whether they propose to introduce legislation to give effect to that part of the Commission's Report.
I do not propose to pursue that matter further, but with your Lordships' permission I should like to make a few observations upon the Report of the Royal Commission itself. The Commission, as your Lordships are aware, reported some time ago. It is not my intention to make any reference to the events which were assumed to give rise to the appointment of that Commission; neither should I think of talking disrespectfully of the Commission itself. It performed its duty with great rapidity under the care of my noble and learned friend Lord Dunedin. It produced a document of great value and importance, a piece of concise and lucid drafting not untouched by humour.
My first point, then, is with reference to the recommendations of the Royal Commission that a Committee of the Privy Council, of not more than three members, be appointed of persons not being members of the Government to serve for the period of the duration of office of the Government, and that before submission to His Majesty of the names of persons for appointment to any dignity or honour on account of political services, the names of such persons should be submitted to the Committee with appended to each name the following particulars:—

(a) A statement of the service in respect of which, and the reasons for which, the recommendation is proposed to be made;

(b) A statement by the Patronage Secretary or Party manager that no payment, or expectation of payment, to any Party or political fund is directly or indirectly associated with the recommendation;

261

(c) The name and address of the person who the Prime Minister considers was the Original suggestor of the name of the proposed recipient.

As to the last suggestion, it is somewhat pathetic to think of an over-wrought Prime Minister who has determined to make a particular recommendation to the King, we will say for the honour of a Peerage, sitting up at nights and endeavouring to recollect who was the person who originally suggested that there was such a man, and wondering where he lived and where he was to be found.
The Commission go on to recommend
"That the Committee, after such inquiry as they think fit, should report to the Prime Minister whether, so far as they believe, the person is, in the whole circumstances, a fit and proper person to be recommended."
The Commission further express the opinion that this information would enable the Committee to make such inquiries through their secretary as they thought desirable, and they would then report whether, so far as they knew, there was any good reason which made it inexpedient that the name in such and such an instance shall be submitted.
An examination of the Report shows that the Commission, conscious no doubt of the criticism that their proposal might weaken Cabinet responsibility, were careful to say that "the proposal we make is intended only to help the Prime Minister to satisfy himself and not to diminish his duty in so doing." No one would deny first-aid to a Prime Minister, but it is a question whether in such a case any aid is really necessary—whether he could not, by care and circumspection, and with the assistance of his Cabinet, come to a full and fair conclusion as to the merits and demerits of his recommendations. The Committee of the Privy Council is to report to the Prime Minister whether the person is, in the whole circumstances, a fit and proper person to be recommended. That, so far as it has gone, would seem to suggest that the Committee of the Privy Council would have practically full control over the recommendations which the Prime Minister proposes to make, and which are sent, together with this information to which I have referred, to the Committee. But the Commission then go on, as it seems to me, to make some limitation. They say their duty (the duty of the Committee) "must be one of scrutiny, and
262
scrutiny only—to report if the past history or general character of a person rendered him unsuitable to be recommended." This is a recommendation which the Prime Minister proposes to make, but it goes to this Committee for their scrutiny and report" if the past history or general character of the person renders him unsuitable to be recommended."
I have felt some difficulty in making up my mind exactly what the duties of this Committee are to be. The Committee has been appointed, and I presume that it exercised some functions with regard to those recommendations which have recently been accepted by the Crown. If that is so, I take it that the Government may not be indisposed to give us some account of the reference to, and of the procedure of, that Committee. It really is an interesting matter to know whether the Committee is instructed merely to report upon the past history and character of a person who is to be recommended for a seat in your Lordships' House, or whether, by reference to the material which is to be sent to the Committee by the Prime Minister, the Committee is also to look into the general circumstances of the case and come to some conclusion upon the matter.
I should like to know how this Committee is going to function. If it is to report on character and history only, well and good. But your Lordships will observe that if that is what the Committee is appointed to do, then there are many other questions which ought to be considered before your Lordships could be certain that a person recommended would become a wholly suitable member of your Lordships' House. There are, for instance, the question of services and the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of the reward. And if the Committee is not merely to go into character and history, but is to make the sort of inquiries suggested in one part of the Report when it says that they are to be supplied with material, then, indeed, the Committee is taking into its own hands a large share of the duties which certainly ought to fall upon the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and particularly upon the Prime Minister as primarily responsible to the King. Therefore, in the one case or the other the subject demands some consideration from your Lordships.
I imagine, from the terms of the Report, that the Government will say that the Committee can only go into past history and character, and that they cannot assume to themselves the general supervision of these recommendations in such a way as to take the principal power out of the hands of the Government. If this is so, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the Prime Minister is to be aided by the Committee in regard to limited part of the whole subject upon which he really does not require much aid. Surely, upon reflection, the whole picture is out of perspective.
What is the true view? It is the custom at the New Year and on the occasion of His Majesty's Birthday to submit recommendations or suggestions for honours. The Royal Commission goes out of its way—and very properly so—to express a hope that those lists will be small, but it appears to be necessary each half year, for reasons which I cannot fathom, to go out into the world and endeavour to find four or five persons who should be submitted for Peerages. Apparently, as the appointed time arrives, the Prime Minister, already busily employed, is in labour, and produces four or five recommendations for potential Peers. The Report of the Commission suggests to the mind of the reader that when he makes up his mind to recommend these gentlemen for seats in your Lordships' House, he knows nothing about the men at all; that he has never heard of them except at second hand, and that, apparently, he knows nothing of their services; and the suggestion is that it is impossible for anybody but a Committee of the Privy Council to "devil" those names for the Prime Minister and ascertain whether they have a past or deserve to have a future.
I should have thought that there would have been no difficulty at all on the part of the Prime Minister in coming to a conclusion as to whether those four or five men were fit and proper persons to be recommended to the Sovereign, and that the Cabinet is the body who should be responsible for that office. I have had something to do with honours of sorts in the past, and I have always felt great difficulty in understanding why your Lordships' House should be recruited by the calendar, why at two periods of the year it should be necessary to find persons who
264
are to be recommended to the Sovereign and are now, under the new procedure, to be recommended to the Sovereign after the list has been "vetted" by this Committee. There is no reason why, at these periods of the year, men should be sought for, found, and then warranted sound. If there is no knowledge as to who they are and what their services have been, why should any recommendation be made?
Surely, the true view is that a public servant designed for such an important honour as a seat in your Lordships' House should be a man who, by his service and by his merits, is certain to catch the eye of the Prime Minister without any of this paraphernalia. This Committee of the Privy Council on past history and general character must always be very distasteful to a Prime Minister and it must also be very uncomfortable and distasteful to the Prime Minister's nominees. The formula in the future will be to congratulate a man not upon his Peerage, but upon having passed the test of this Committee. That is a form of examination to which a man of mature years and distinguished service would never have expected to have to submit—certainly not on this side of the grave. I should be very glad indeed if I thought that your Lordships would consider this question somewhat deeply, because it means, as it seems to me, that in the future your Lordships' House is to be recruited in a manner which lamentably reflects upon its dignity.
I know that it will be said at once: "But what is the alternative?" Those of your Lordships who have read the Report will have observed that the Commissioners lucidly point out that non-political honours are not the work of the Prime Minister only, the overworked Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, India, and to some extent both the Navy and the Army deal with their own recommendations. Unless the recommendations coming through those Departments savour of what is called a political honour they go direct from the Minister to the Crown. But it must be recognised that political honours proper cannot be dealt with in that way. Political honours proper must be contained in a Prime Minister's list. Bearing in mind that

265
the policy of sub-dividing the heavy duty of dealing with these somewhat disagreeable things is well known to the Cabinet, why should not two Ministers of distinction and importance, connected, if possible, with your Lordships' House, be detailed to assist the Prime Minister in going into these delicate questions and to make a report in writing? There are, for instance, the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal, two very important Ministers at all times and usually sitting in your Lordships' House.
It may be said by some: "But if you have an irresponsible Prime Minister"—if such a person could ever exist—"he will coerce his Ministers and they will become, parties to recommendations which are not satisfactory." I think there is a great deal of difference between the case in which sole responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister, and that in which two Ministers of great position and distinction, forming a Cabinet Committee, make a written report upon the recommendations and that report goes with the Prime Minister's recommendations to the King, so that the King is apprised not only of the recommendations of his Prime Minister but of the views upon them of two members of the Cabinet stated in writing. If you can deal with the difficulty in that way, surely you are extending the responsibility of members of the Cabinet—a preferable course, I suggest, to the nomination of this outside Committee.
If the question of the recommendations is dealt with in the manner I have suggested, it will be observed that the Ministers who, at the Prime Minister's request, examine the recommendations for political honours put forward by him will be in a position not only to de-al with the question of character and of history, but also with all those things which are very pertinent—namely, the services of the individual, the adequacy or inadequacy of the reward, and many other matters which will readily occur to your Lordships.
I do not desire to weary your Lordships, but I should like to say one word upon another recommendation of the Honours Commission—a matter which arises directly out of that which I have ventured to put before you. It bears on the question: What effect, if any, has the
266
Report of the Commission upon the Prerogative of the Crown? I think that, inadvertently no doubt, the Report of the Commission has worn the attenuated form of the Prerogative thinner and thinner. The Report of the Commission says this:
"The King is the fountain of Honour, and all grants are made by him, but in the selection of the recipients of these grants, as in other things, he is in use to act not on his own initiative but on the advice of his Ministers."
This, as your Lordships are well aware, the Sovereign does, except in one or two cases, such as the Royal Victorian Order.
No sane person at this time would argue that the Crown should take what I will call positive action with regard to conferring political honours. That is quite out of the question. But what about negative action? Do your Lordships hold that where a case comes before the Crown on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, in which there is evidence of had character, or "history" or unsuitability, the recommendation should be accepted by the Sovereign in spite of those defects? The Royal Commission reported as follows:
"It follows therefore that the whole true responsibility rests on the Prime Minister and we think that it is of the greatest importance that this position should be fully maintained and that any suggestions which we may feel able to make should be looked on as morn aids to the Prime Minister and not as in the slightest degree relieving him of the responsibility which in a question with the King he must truly bear. We would add that we think it ought never to be cast on the Private Secretary of the King to make inquiries as to the proposed recipients. Tile list, as presented to the King, ought to be unassailable both as to selection and composition, and the only outstanding matter for the King to decide, with the Prime Minister, should be the number of honours to be conferred."
When the Commissioners reported that in their opinion it ought never to be cast on the Private Secretary of the King to make inquiries as to the proposed recipients of honours it is probable that those words were intended to be merely enabling—designed, that is, to save trouble.
But I am sure your Lordships will agree that the certificate as to character and history to be given by the Committee of the Privy Council only one of many questions which may arise in the mind of the Sovereign as to a recommendation presented to him. The Private Secretary

267
represents the King for such a purpose and it cannot be contended that there is any impropriety in his endeavouring to obtain information of every kind, even including that upon which the Committee of the Privy Council has based its findings. I cannot think, in the words of the Commission, that the only outstanding matter for the King to decide, with the Prime Minister, should be the number of honours to be conferred. That would surely leave the Prerogative in a most unsatisfactory condition. Apparently, it would mean, if there was any trouble or disagreement with regard to such matters, that the Crown would be left with no alternative but to say: "Oh, well, I do not agree that any recommendations should be made upon this occasion."
What do the Commissioners say upon the subject? The first part of paragraph 25 I have already described to your Lordships. It deals with information as to service and so forth which is to go before the Committee, and it then proceeds:—
"This information would enable the Committee to make such inquiries, through their secretary, as they thought desirable and they would then report if, so far as they knew, there was any good reason which made it inexpedient that the name in such or such an instance should be submitted. If in spite of an unfavourable intimation the Prime Minister still wished to submit the name to the King, then the King should be informed of the report of the Committee."
"The King should be informed of the Report of the Committee." For what purpose? Is His Majesty's Prerogative to be invoked for the purpose of supporting the finding of the Privy Council Committee in a case of this sort, although the Prerogative finds no place elsewhere? The King is to be informed of the report of the Committee. Does that mean that His Majesty should be informed to enable him to reject the recommendation, or is it intended that notice should merely be given to him that such a finding has been made by the Committee and without giving any aid as to what is to follow from it?
I certainly should have preferred it if the Commissioners had said that the King could be informed in order that the recommendation might be rejected, or some words to that effect. However, I cannot but think that your Lordships would hold, and I trust the Government may agree, that where there is, as in a
268
case which had been before the Committee, evidence of bad character, evidence of a past history, or evidence of general unsuitability, that the Prerogative should be exercised adversely to the recommendation. I am sorry that I have been so long. The Report of the Royal Commission is an important document. It emerged as the result of a political appeal, the consequences of which were, I think, far-reaching. But the Report will now go into the dusty archives of the nation, and when it comes out again no doubt it will be referred to as the great State Paper on the method of dealing with honours in our time. For these reasons I have hoped that it would not be uninteresting to your Lordships to take some stock of its contents.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Southborough has raised not one but two very important subjects. The first related to the position of the Prime Minister and to the new Committee of the Privy Council. The second related to the Prerogative, and it was obvious why the noble Lord was hound to allude to the second question. The two are inseparably connected. I will touch first for a moment upon the very delicate topic of the Prerogative. I think it is useful that we should have had this discussion because it has brought something to light, although I do not quite agree with the noble Lord in something he said at the conclusion of his speech.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding in the country about the position of the Sovereign in respect to Ills Ministers. In the Constitution of this country the Sovereign is no automaton, as is sometimes popularly supposed. A Minister goes to him—any Minister or ex-Minister who has had considerable experience of recommending honours knows this—and the Sovereign may discuss very searchingly the question which comes up. He may do the same thing with the Prime Minister. He does not automatically approve what the Minister says. On the contrary, he considers it with him. And that is necessary, because although the maxim that the King can do no wrong is of full practical application as well as theoretical in the Law Courts, it has not the same practical application outside and the public would misunderstand the action of the head of the State.

269
But the King is within his rights in asking from his servants the most minute explanation of what they are doing and what they recommend. In my own experience that has very often happened. If that is so and there are cases of difference, a question of difficulty does arise. The noble Lord touched on it, and I am not sure that I quite agree with his conclusions. Suppose a Minister makes a recommendation to which the Sovereign objects. The Minister may, if he wishes to proceed to very extreme courses, go to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and if the Cabinet endorse his view and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet repeat the recommendation to the Sovereign, then the position of the Sovereign is a very difficult one. The Sovereign acts on the advice of his Ministers on all things that are not peculiarly within his personal Prerogative. There are such things, but the noble Lord suggested that the Prerogative is now much more narrow than it was in days gone past. It has varied very much in the course of history. Things that George I would have done at once on the advice of his Ministers, George III would have refused: and since the time of George III the situation has changed.
In an unwritten and developing Constitution such as ours the relation of the Sovereign to His Ministers is a relationship which is constantly modified as time goes by. To-day, it remains certain that although in extreme cases the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, if they feel they have the public behind them, can give such advice to the Sovereign as would constitutionally bind the Sovereign, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the Cabinet would not take up any such question, and the matter would drop. Therefore I think that a great amount of influence remains with the Sovereign in stopping had recommendations. A Minister goes and asks for an audience. He is graciously accorded an audience; and the King is graciously pleased to say: "This, that, and the other matter has occurred to me, upon which I wish you would tell me whether you have maturely considered the matter"; and it may happen that the discussion leads to the dropping of the proposition. Certainly the Sovereign is well within his rights in taking that
270
course, and I have no doubt that it has often lead to the dropping of unseasonable proposals.
Therefore, in discussing this question, it is necessary to get rid of the "either-or" attitude—either the Sovereign has no power, or has full power. The truth is that in an unwritten relationship such as ours he has great influence with his Ministers and can exercise that influence in what may be a very effective fashion. I have said that in order to come to the first branch of the subject. If that be true, then I do agree with my noble friend in the distinction he has made between cases which are proper for the Commission of the Privy Council and cases which are without the scope of the reference to them. There are two kinds of objections which may be taken to a proposed Peerage. One class of objection is based on some flaw in the past; and the second objection is based on merit, or want of merit. The two are in a very different position. The first raises questions which must be approached in a semi-judicial attitude; the second raises questions which trench on policy which are for the First Minister of the Crown, and really for him alone.
It is obvious from the Report of the Commission which was presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord. Dunedin, that the members took a very careful view of their position. They were resolute that they would not trespass into-the domain of policy. Question as to whether there was a flaw—that was all right; but the question as to whether such and such a person should be recommended they put outside their scope, with the result that one member of the Commission dissented and said that the time had come when all honours should be abolished. I read that as meaning that he did not regard the recommendation of his colleagues as one which would cover the ground and, therefore, he would not be a party to the Report. I do not think the least exception can be taken to the Report on this point. You may say that if the other branch of the inquiry were thoroughly conducted there would be no necessity for the Committee of the Privy Council at all. But if you do not say that, if you say that in order to relieve the Prime Minister or to give confidence to the public there ought to be an inquiry into past conduct, then the Committee is an admirable body for performing that duty.

271
But I wish to point out, and to emphasise, that any competent Committee will regard the scope of its rights as very limited. It will not go into anything like general reputation; it will not go into gossip. It will inquire into things about gossip, but when it reports it will confine itself to things which are more or less proved. I have known cases of honours given in which, if that Committee had been in existence and die facts had been brought to its notice, there would have been a Report which would have stopped the honour. It is for cases of that kind that it exists. The far larger side of the question is the recommendation on the ground of merit; and the question is how can that be accomplished. A recommendation for a high honour of merit is an act of State when assented to by the Sovereign, and it ought to be on the responsibility of Ministers and the First Minister of the Crown.
I do not believe in referring this question to the Cabinet as distinct from the Prime Minister. It is essentially the Prime Minister's business, and he is the only person who can properly deal with it. But the Prime Minister may obtain what assistance he likes. He does sometimes obtain very competent assistance. I have known him, for instance, in selecting a condidate for a bishopric, whose name is to be put into the patent document known as the Congé d' élire, take most competent advice from different quarters. I do not see why he should not assist himself in a similar way in regard to honours, but I would not tie him down to any particular Committee on this matter. I do not like the idea of devolving even upon so admirable a Minister as the Lord President of the Council, or the Lord Privy Seal, a duty which belongs to the Prime Minister alone, a responsibility which rests upon the Prime Minister alone. How can they tell? It is a very difficult matter to decide who is to come up for an honour and who is not.
My noble friend said—I thought with immense truth—that a custom has grown up lately of producing on feast days, as a sort of matter of course, a long list of persons who are entitled to honours. I entirely agree with his objection to that course. I do not think it was the practice of Sir Robert Peel, nor was it, at any rate in anything approaching the present dimensions, the practice of Mr. Gladstone,
272
and they were both great constitutionalists. It has grown up to such an extent that, as my noble friend said, the Prime Minister seems to be looking about him to fill up a decently fat Honours List. That is not as it should be. It the granting of honours were very much more restricted, if the spirit, not the letter, of Mr. Henderson's dissenting Report were carried into effect, then the Prime Minister's task would be much easier. He would regard it as a very serious matter to recommend anybody for an honour, as a matter which he must take time to consider; he would inquire, it might be of the Lord President, it might be of the Lord Privy Seal, it might be of various colleagues in the Cabinet, or it might be outside the Cabinet; he would take time to satisfy himself, and he would look, above all, to what is the real standard in four cases out of five—I mean public opinion. I do not say that there are not some cases into which public opinion does not enter. There are people who have rendered very great service to the State of which the public are imperfectly informed. But the Prime Minister would judge of that.
I do not see clearly my noble friend's picture of an overworked Prime Minister, a Prime Minister so overworked that he cannot do what I have suggested. This is one of the matters upon which he can surely reflect very adequately in the interstices of his occupations, and I think that if he could get a sense of what the standard of public opinion will approve, it would enable him better to perform the next part of his duty, which is not to put the name in a box with a humble application to the Sovereign, but to ask an audience of the Sovereign and say: "Here are the very few names which come up, and I have come to ask your Majesty's gracious permission to discuss them with you." In that way I think considerable light would come, particularly if the King were advised beforehand what were the names which were to be brought forward.
The sum and substance of what I venture to suggest to your Lordships is this. It is quite true that the Committee of the Privy Council covers only half—indeed, not half, but a mere fraction—of the ground, and there is another important part of the ground which cannot be so covered, and for which the Prime Minister must remain responsible. The

273
Prime Minister should satisfy himself, not in one particular way but, as in other matters, by consultation, what is the proper thing to be done consistently with the standard of public opinion; and when that has been done, the matter should form the subject of that discussion which takes place between the Sovereign and his Ministers, not leading to any enlargement of the Prerogative, not leading to the slightest alteration of the position as it now stands, but leading to that position, which is not uncommon, in which discussions between the Sovereign and his Prime Minister are often of a very fertile character.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, before the noble Marquess replies, I think somebody ought to protest against the view brought forward by the noble Lord who asked this Question that no legislation ought to be based on the Report of the Royal Commission.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I did not say that at all. I merely asked the Government whether they proposed to introduce such legislation. I am anticipating that they will.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I understood that he was against legislation being introduced, but I am very glad to hear that he is not. It seems to me that the Report of the Royal Commission is a most excellent document, and this House is under a great obligation to noble Lords like the noble Earl opposite, Lord Selborne, for the arguments, which he has brought forward on many different occasions, on the basis of which the Royal Commission was set up. There is no doubt that the Royal Commission was set up because there were instances of people being awarded high honours when people outside, found it impossible to understand why the honours had been given. The people who were given these honours may have done great service to the State, but it was not service that anybody knew anything about, and I venture to say that the Report of the Commission, which is being acted upon by the Prime Minister, and which, I imagine, will be acted upon by all Prime Ministers in future, will make it impossible, so far as the award of high honours is concerned, for any man to be
274
given an honour without having done at any rate very considerable public service. It seems to me that the Report of the Royal Commission has been very valuable in that direction. As I have said, anybody who obtains an honour must be able to show a record of public service, and nobody will have an honour conferred upon him merely because he has given largely to political funds, and for no other reason.
There are two very small points, however, in relation to which, if the Government is going to bring in legislation, I should like to urge that the procedure should be strengthened. The Royal Commission recommends that three Privy Councillors should be appointed to settle whether a man has or has not done public service. I have no doubt that three Privy Councillors are quite enough. They can say at once, on the evidence before them, whether a man has done good public service or not. But I would put one point which I think has not really been dealt with by the Royal Commission. I refer to cases of men who have performed political services, of men who have performed services in the Press or in the House of Commons. Can we imagine that three Privy Councillors will necessarily know whether these people ought to have honours conferred upon them or not?
I have known cases—of one or two of them I had some personal knowledge, though of others I knew nothing—where I have gone into the City on the day when some list of honours has come out, and I have been told by man after man in the City that there was some public scandal connected with a man upon whom an honour had been conferred. Such men had clone public service in a way, they had served in the House of Commons or done something of that kind, but they had been mixed up in a scandal in the Law Courts which, if the Prime Minister had known about it, would surely have restrained hint from giving them any honour at all. I suggest that when the Government are introducing legislation, as I hope they will, to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, they ought to appoint more than three as a Committee to inquire into this matter. I think there ought to be at least two Judges on the Committee, and

275
that it would certainly strengthen the proceedings if the number were so increased.
Secondly, I do not think it is a very good recommendation of the Committee where they say, in paragraph 24, that the Committee of the Privy Council
"should have attached to them a secretary, and as it is inexpedient to create a new office for business which would only be intermittent, we think a suitable person should be found in the ranks of the Civil Service who should combine these intermittent duties with his ordinary functions."
I venture to say that if legislation is brought in the Government ought to do something to keep a permanent record. I had an experience some years ago, during the war, as I think I have mentioned before. I happened to hear that a minor honour was going to be conferred upon a certain individual. In the district where that individual lived everybody knew that he had shown a very conspicuous lack of assistance in the war, when other people were trying to do their best to help. I went to the official whom I thought was concerned and mentioned the facts, and the moment he heard them he said it would certainly be a scandal if the honour were conferred, and that he would see that the person's name was struck out. The name was struck out, and I heard no more about it until two or three years later, when the honour was conferred. I inquired the reason for this, and I found that the old official had gone, that no record had been kept, and that the new official, knowing nothing about the facts, had allowed the recommendation to pass. I was told that what I ought to have done was to go to the Private Secretary of the King, who would have kept a record, and that then the individual could never have got the honour.
I think it is important that the Government should see that a record is kept and that if the Prime Minister brings forward certain names to go on the Honours List, and if the Committee of the Privy Council which is set up strikes out certain names, there ought to be a record kept of those names, so that whenever those names are brought up again the Committee will be able to say: "Five years ago this or that name was struck out: let us look into the facts and see whether or not the name ought to be struck out again." I
276
believe it is in the interest of the public and of the Government that there should be a record. There are very few cases of honours that ought not to have been conferred at all, but I am certain that things can only be kept right by a record being preserved. And provision for that should be included by the Government in any legislation which they introduce.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The Question which has been raised is one of considerable importance, but also, as has been said, one of some delicacy, for it introduces the subject of the Prerogative, which naturally introduces the rights and, to a certain extent, the personality of the Sovereign; and your Lordships are rightfully very chary of discussions which may in any way allude to the action which the Sovereign may have to take in any special circumstances, or to the influence which he or she may bring to bear in any particular political crisis. We live under a constitutional monarchy, but we do not wish our Sovereigns to be mere figure-heads. The fact that King Edward VII has gone down to posterity by the name of Edward the Peacemaker, is, I think, sufficient to show that he took strong action in the direction of peace, and used an equally strong influence in the same direction. So, in the case of Queen Victoria, as years went on, her influence was more sought and valued by her Ministers, as it was recognised that she was a greater authority on constitutional matters than any of them, and that her influence was always used towards the softening of asperities and the reconciliation of differences between the two Houses.
I was surprised and somewhat disappointed to find in the Report of the Royal Commission—and the Commissioners certainly gave great attention to the subject—to what a very small degree the Royal Prerogative had been in their opinion reduced. As pointed out, it seemed to consist merely of the Sovereign being able to look over the list submitted by the Prime Minister, and stating whether he wished it reduced or not, and I was glad to hear from the noble Viscount that that was not in his opinion an accurate view of the situation. The Commissioners went on to say that even recommendations relating to persons of the Royal Household would appear in the Prime Minister's list. Of course they

277
would, because that is the constitutional way in which they should appear, but I cannot imagine that there is any Sovereign of this country who, if he wished to recompense a trusty member of the Royal Household, for services rendered through a number of years, would hesitate to take the initiative and inform the Prime Minister that he wished to confer an honour upon him. Nor can I imagine that any Prime Minister would receive the Sovereign's wish as other than a command. We all know that Coronation, honours are bestowed on the initiative of the Sovereign. It is the habit on those occasions to give promotions in the Peerage, and to create extra Knights of the Garter. The fact that these are made on the special recommendation of the Sovereign is shown by the circumstance that they are very often given to gentlemen who hold political views different from those of the Party in power.
I wish to call attention to two recent instances where I think the Prerogative of the Crown has not been treated with proper respect. One case I mentioned in the House last year, when the Irish Free State Constitution Bill was under discussion. Your Lordships may remember that one of the provisions of the Bill states that "no title of honour in respect of services rendered in or in relation to the Irish Free State may be conferred on any citizen of the Irish Free State except with the approval or upon the advice of the Executive Council of the State." I am not going to argue whether that provision was a good one to put into the Bill or not. We know there have been cases where the Prime Ministers of other Dominions have expressed the opinion that honours should not be conferred upon citizens of those Dominions without the approval of the Prime Ministers being first obtained. I think the reason of that is not so much that they objected to the honour as that they objected to the Prime Minister of this country bestowing an honour upon a citizen of a Dominion whom the Prime Minister of the Dominion would not have selected for such a distinction.
The point I wish to make is that that provision in the Act was a serious interference with His Majesty's Prerogative and ought not to have been considered by either House until a gracious Message had been received from the Sovereign stating that he placed at the disposal of
278
the House his rights with respect to the conferring of honours. I believe that has always been done—as I believed I pointed out during the passage of that Bill—in the case of legislation dealing with the Duchy of Lancaster. In that case a Message is always sent to the House that the King has placed his rights as regards that Duchy at the disposal of the House for the purpose of the special legislation which is contemplated. The measure to which I refer, however, was passed in a great hurry, and it was impossible to press the matter on the Douse to the extent that I should have liked to do.
The other case of interference, if I may call it so, with the Royal Prerogative, in which due respect was not paid to His Majesty the King was, I am sure, unwitting, because it was in the case of a great newspaper, The Times, on the occasion of the resignation honours when Mr. Lloyd George's Ministry resigned. Instead of the usual notice that we are accustomed to see that His Majesty is graciously pleased, either on the occasion of his birthday or some other occasion, to confer the honour of a barony or a knighthood on certain individuals, the following appeared in The Times of November 11, 1922:—
"We received yesterday from 18, Abingdon Street, Westminster, the headquarters of the National Liberals, the following resignation honours list, dated October 19, together with the services in respect of which they have been conferred."
I believe this is the first instance in which it has occurred that, instead of the notice emanating officially from His Majesty, it was furnished apparently by a clerk in the offices of Mr. Lloyd George. I sincerely hope that this precedent will not be repeated.
I think it might be worth while to recall the terms of the ordinary Letters Patent. They are very well known to your Lordships; in fact, during the last administration we used to have the pleasure of listening to them, I should think, on the average once a fortnight during the whole Session. But, although they are familiar to your Lordships, they may not hr so familiar to all His Majesty's subjects, and, with the permission of the House, I should like to quote a few words from them. The Sovereign begins with the usual greeting to all his subjects, from Archbishops down to free-

279
men, and then he proceeds to state that he intends to confer a certain honour on an individual, and he gives his reasons for doing so, and the reasons are three:—
"We of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion ….
These are not meaningless words. I speak in the presence of many noble and learned Lords, but I believe they have all been before various Courts of Law and the exact meaning of the words has been decided. "Especial grace" does not require very much explanation: that is the Royal bounty or favour. "Certain knowledge" means that there have been brought to the knowledge of the King the reasons why the person selected is a suitable recipient for the honour. The words "mere motion" are even more interesting. Ex mero motu, which is the Latin for it, means that the honour was not given upon the suggestion or suit of the party who is concerned, and I think, in view of what has happened lately, that is a very interesting announcement.
We are apt to forget that every word which is put into the mouth of the gracious Sovereign is put with a special meaning, not only in these cases, but even when an Act of Parliament is passed. Your Lordships will remember that, there are two forms in which the Royal assent is given. The ordinary one is, "Le roy le veult." But in the case of such a thing as the granting of a divorce, which the Sovereign is not supposed to be so anxious to do as some noble Lords—a noble Lord on the front Opposition Bench for example—we have the words: "Soit fait comme il est desire." In these democratic days, I think often without intention, the Royal Prerogative is encroached upon, and it is because I am very anxious that this should not be done, and that as far as possible the Royal Prerogative should be preserved that I have ventured to trouble your Lordships with these few remarks.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I only wish to call your attention to two small points: at least, to two points which are not left quite so clear by the Report of the Royal Commission, and as we have the pleasure of seeing the noble and learned Lord who presided over the Commission (Lord Dunedin) in his place, I hope the debate will not close without some of these points being clarified.
280
I find in paragraphs 23 and 27 words which seem, to limit the functions of the proposed Committee of three Privy Councillors for deciding whether there is anything which makes it inexpedient that the name should be submitted, and in another paragraph they seem to be limited to the consideration of whether there are any circumstances which render the proposed nominee unsuitable to be recommended.
Those words, standing by themselves, would seem to limit the three Privy Councillors to consider questions of character, questions of record, and questions of fitness arising out of character and record, and those only. But there appears later in paragraph 34 (iii) the words "in the whole circumstances." What I want to know is whether those words are to be construed as meaning that the three Privy Councillors will or will not be able to go into the adequacy of the public services alleged for the ground of the recommendation, because a good deal hangs upon that. I admit that those words "in the whole circumstances" are not much upon which to place such a load of construction as that, but still there must be some construction put upon them, and I invite my noble and learned friend, whom we always so much like to hear in this House, to say what is to be the meaning put upon those words.
Then, as to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, I think we have to face certain things. I can hardly conceive that any Committee would, with satisfaction to the public, not leave some record, and that a record should not be kept of its proceedings. Clearly lists must be drawn up and very carefully preserved, but, of course, we have to face what that may mean. I took occasion to make inquiry as to what historical precedents there are, and, speaking with the utmost respect and veneration for a certain very great religious community, I looked up the question of the process of Canonisation. There I found that- it was found necessary in that great community to make use of the services of a functionary who went by the name of the advocatus diaboli, that he duly appeared on those occasions and intervened in the necessary process, that on his interventions matters of the greatest minuteness were gone into, precedents were most elaborately searched, and arguments were

281
most carefully balanced. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that that process resulted in the necessity of maintaining a large and expensive staff.
It is true that you have to go to foreign works of history to find these interesting details, for I believe there is no English work to be found giving a description of this process. But we have to face this as a consequence, and we ought to face it. We will hope that the unfortunate experience as to the expense of a staff of mediæval functionaries will not be repeated in this case, but I do hope that there will be some process of this kind to be rendered effective by good records.
LORD DUNEDIN: My Lords, I had not intended to address the House because the course of the debate has not really been one of criticism upon the method of inquiry which we as a Committee thought it right that we should take, and I should not have troubled your Lordships with the single remark that I am going to make if a personal appeal had not been made to me by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I should like to say first, as regards what was said about the Prerogative, that really on: is almost astonished at the idea that it could be said, as was said by the noble Lord who opened the debate, that anything that we said had worn thinner the Prerogative of the Crown.
I am not going to give a lecture on the Prerogative, but I would remind your Lordships that so long ago as the reign of James I when the question of the extent of the Prerogative was raised because of certain proclamations that had been issued, Lord Coke was consulted and asked leave to have three Judges along with him. The second head of the response that he gave was: "The King hath no Prerogative but what the law allows him." When we come to inquire as to where we are to find the law we find (and here I quote from Sir William Anson's book) that—
"It is in statutes, in judicial decisions, and in the customs of the Realm."
Therefore what seven modest people sitting upon a Royal Commission could do I do not know, but I am perfectly certain that they cannot wear the Prerogative thin.
With reference to the points which were raised about the Prerogative, I should
282
only like to add that any words of mine would be superfluous because my noble and learned friend, Lord Haldane, has, to the best of my humble judgment, exactly appreciated what we really meant to say in our Report. That deals with much of what has been said. Certainly, I am not going to respond to the invitation of my noble friend beside me that I should tell him exactly what we did and what we did not do when we sat upon the Committee the other day. The Committee functioned, and the list appeared, and with that amount of intelligence I think my noble friend must be contented.
The answer to the remarks which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, can be given in one sentence. The whole idea of the suggestion of a Committee is that it should be of assistance to the Prime Minister and not a transference of responsibility. Accordingly, it is obvious that assistance can only he given in questions of character. There might be such utter inadequacy of service that, upon certain facts, that matter would come within the cognisance of the Committee; but it can be no part of the duty of the Committee to consider whether a person who is recommended for an Earldom ought to be content with a Viscountey or anything of that sort. I have only troubled your Lordships with these very short observations in response to the appeal that was made to me. All else that has to be answered must be replied to by the Government of which I am not a member.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this subject commenced by an apology, at a time of great Public anxiety when so many matters of urgent importance are pressing upon us, for drawing the attention of your Lordships' House to what he called "a minor matter." I can assure him on behalf of the whole House that no such apology was needed, because in no sense is this a minor matter. The speeches we have heard this afternoon, the not inconsiderable attendance on these benches, and the numerous occasions on which during the past few years it has been seriously debated here in full House, show that in the opinion of the House at large—and it is one that the Government share—it is a matter of first class importance which

283
your Lordships' House certainly do not waste time in discussing either now or at any time you may choose.
I am myself placed in a position this afternoon where the task that is laid upon me is both easy and difficult. It is easy in this sense, that, broadly speaking, His Majesty's Government accept and are prepared to act upon the Report of the Royal Commission which is in your Lordships' hands. Indeed, they have already acted upon it, as has been mentioned, in the appointment of the Committee of Privy Councillors to advise upon the list of honours submitted a short time ago. It is difficult in the sense that I have been called upon by noble Lords who have addressed you to some extent to interpret and explain the language and the proposals of the Royal Commission, for which, of course, the Government have no responsibility apart from that of deciding whether they will or will not act upon its advice. There is, perhaps, a further difficulty in the fact that the criticisms which have been heard in this debate, although I complain of none of them, have ranged over a very wide field, some of them raising issues of great constitutional importance, others being matters of detail of an almost insignificant character. However, to the best of my ability I took note of the observations that fell from my various noble friends and I will deal with them in turn.
In the first place, I should like to join the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, in what he said as to the share of credit that is due to those noble Lords, some of whom sit behind me—I may specially instance, as he did, Lord Selborne, and to his name I would like to add that of the Lord President of the Council, Lord Salisbury—for the part they have taken for many years in pressing this question upon the attention of your Lordships, and for the contribution they have made to the appointment of this Commission, which they originally suggested, and, therefore, indirectly to the result of its work. Secondly, I would like to include in my words of congratulation and of thanks the members of the Royal Commission themselves. It is quite clear that, dealing with a matter of infinite delicacy, they acted with a high sense of responsibility, they explored the whole subject in a manner that was both
284
dignified and sufficing, and they have presented a Report which has met with the general commendation of everyone who has dealt with it this afternoon.
Your Lordships and, indeed, the country at large, will have noted with gratification that the Commission have declared that little fault is to be found with the distribution of the great mass of honours that are bestowed by the Sovereign of this country, whether through the agency of different Ministers or otherwise; and that their main attention has been concentrated upon the question of what are commonly called political honours. It is around that subject that the controversy of the past six or seven years has been raised, and the Royal Commission and the Government will be judged by the manner in which, and the measure of success with which, it is proposed to deal with that situation.
There can be no doubt that grave uneasiness had been excited in many quarters by three phenomena. Firstly, by the excessive number of additions to the Peerage in recent years, numbers so large that they had converted this Chamber, which is in its essence a legislative body, into a vast Assembly, if that phrase can be properly applied to a body three-fourths of whom seldom come within these walls. Secondly, there can be no doubt that suspicion had been excited to a large extent that titles were in some cases, whether due to carelessness or otherwise, conferred upon persons who were either unfit for the honour or whose claims to it had not been sufficiently investigated. And lastly, there was the belief that large contributions to Party funds, however legitimate and honourable in themselves, had been in too many cases the main and decisive, if not the sole, factor in the conferment of these honours. Those were the main abuses, or alleged abuses, which the Royal Commission was appointed to deal with, and it-is in relation to them that we ought to judge of their Report. I will not allude, except in a sentence in passing, to the further abuse that they dealt with—namely, that of the existence, or alleged existence, of touts who went about, very often without any authority at all, offering honours for sums of money. If that was true, and I believe there was evidence that such persons did exist, it was a deplorable, a

285
discreditable and an ignoble phenomenon in our public life which, I hope, will henceforward disappear.
The main suggestions of the Royal Commission were the appointment of this Committee, to which I will come in a moment, and the suggestion of legislation. Lord Southborough asked the Government whether they propose to introduce the legislation advised by the Royal Commission. The purposes for which an Act is, in the opinion of the Royal Commission, required are stated in paragraphs 31 and 32 of their Report. They recommend that a short Act should be passed which should impose penalties on any person offering to be the instrument in securing an honour for another in respect of a money payment or valuable consideration. They go on to say:
"We think that the Act should also impose penalties on any person promising payment or consideration in order to receive an honour."
The answer to the Question of my noble friend Lord Southborough is in the affirmative. The Government do propose to introduce this legislation. It will have to be carefully framed, a matter for which, no doubt, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will make himself responsible. But we have the fullest intention of introducing it, and of introducing it in your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord St. Davids was mistaken, when dealing with the contemplated legislation, in imagining that legislation would be required for a further purpose to which he alluded—namely, the setting up of the Committee. If he implied, as I think he did, that a law would be required for that purpose, of course he was in error. The Committee has already been appointed without a law, and no law is required for it. It is open to the Government—this Government, or any Government that is its successor—while acting upon the general advice that is given here, to appoint to this Committee three persons; or four persons, or live persons, as they please.
Similarly with regard to a record. Not having considered the matter with my colleagues or consulted the Prime Minister upon the point, I should not like to express too definite an opinion upon the question of records, but I have heard of
286
cases—and I think one has been mentioned in this debate—where, at a subsequent date, an honour was conferred upon person, investigation with regard to whose claims had shown at an earlier date, though the record had disappeared, that they were wholly untenable. I can well imagine that to meet a case of that sort a record of some kind may be desirable. Here, again, legislation is not required. The Committee, who are appointed, if I remember aright, for the period of the duration of office of a Government, and who have their secretary, can, I imagine, give such instructions to their secretary as they may think fit. On the whole I am inclined to think it would be a good thing that a secretary should, in discharge of his duties, keep some record, without of course going too minutely into particulars, which may save us from the recurrence of any such scandal as that to which I referred.
I next turn to the composition of the Committee. Here a number of suggestions have been made with which, I own, I find myself in no sympathy. There were two suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Southborough, who introduced this subject. The first was that instead of having this Committee of independent outside Privy Councillors the Cabinet should be entrusted with the task. I shudder at the prospect of the. Cabinet being invited to sit down and discuss, firstly, whether A, B, or C should be made a Peer, and, secondly, if he be made a Peer, whether he should be, Baron, Viscount or Earl. Arduous as are our duties at the present moment I can conceive our absolute breakdown under any such strain. But I do not want to deal with it as if it were a humorous matter. I lay it down, from such knowledge of Cabinet procedure as I possess, that this has nothing whatever to do with the Cabinet. It is altogether outside the constitutional functions of a Cabinet. The grant of honours has been for hundreds of years, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, correctly pointed out, a function that rightly devolves upon the Prime Minister in consultation with the King. The King is the fountain of honour, but he acts in this respect upon the advice of his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may consult anybody he pleases, and very often does, but the idea that he should bring before the Cabinet the question of honours is one utterly

287
foreign to our whole constitutional procedure, and is an innovation which everyone of us has knowledge would altogether deplore.
The same criticism applies, of course, to the other suggestion of my noble friend Lord Southborough, that the task should be devolved upon two members of the Cabinet—for instance, upon the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal. Conceive the invidious position in which it would place them. In the first place you select them out of their colleagues for the privilege of advising the Prime Minister upon this matter; consequently, whatever advice they give, as they are members of the Cabinet, would be looked upon as possessing a Party character, as tainted with the Party spirit, as open to the many abuses we are now trying to correct and remove. Conceive, for instance, these two noble Lords—these two members of the Cabinet—being asked to advise the Prime Minister as to whether ole of their colleagues should receive a step in rank. Can you imagine a situation more delicate or more disagreeable? No, my Lords, let us be grateful to the Royal Commission for having spared the Cabinet, or members of the Cabinet, any task so profoundly disagreeable as that, and for having suggested to us an outside body both of authority and competence.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH: Will the noble Marquess forgive me? It would be much more disagreeable in the case he quotes for the Committee to have to undertake the duty.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not think so. The two Cabinet Ministers would be dealing with a colleague, and colleagues have to be very delicately handled. Another noble Lord suggested that to this Committee there should be added two Judges. I confess I have no idea why that suggestion was made. Was it required for the moral character, or the judicial—
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: What I had in my mind was that there had been several scandals revealed in the Law Courts in respect of persons concerned in what I call minor honours. There has been a public scandal connected with a
288
man, and then some years pass, and it is forgotten. The man then receives an honour. Judges would have knowledge of past proceedings in the Courts.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I apologise if I misunderstood my noble friend. Really it will not be necessary to have two Judges permanently on the Committee for that purpose. These cases can but seldom arise, and there is nothing in the procedure or prerogative of the Committee to prevent them from consulting any member of the Bench upon such a question as that.
I come to the question of the functions of the Committee, about which a good deal has been said. My noble friend Lord Southborough commenced by asking me questions as to the procedure of the Committee that sat the other day to make its recommendations to the Prime Minister, and Lord Dunedin, who, I think, served upon that Committee, very properly said in reply that any divulgation of these proceedings would be grossly improper. Obviously, this Committee can only discharge its responsibility adequately by working in private, and to make any public statement as to the way in which it proceeds, and the manner in which its recommendation is given, would defeat the very object for which the Committee itself has been created.
Then he alluded to the suggestion in the Report of the Royal Commission that there should be given to this Committee, when they are asked to undertake their duties, the name and address of the person who the Prime Minister considers was the original suggestor of the name of the proposed recipient. I do not know why that proposal was made, and I confess I think it would be rather difficult to carry out. in the first place, it throws upon the Prime Minister the responsibility of saying, out of half a dozen or a dozen people who may have suggested for an honour some worthy recipient, who was the original suggestor, and, in the second place, it may place him in the difficult position of pointing out to the Committee, sometimes not without truth, that the original suggestor was the proposed recipient himself. Therefore, that is a proposal upon which I think the Committee may find it rather difficult to act.

289
Broadly speaking, the question is: Does the Report of the Royal Commission give this Committee the latitude in discharging its duties which we all desire? You may take passages from different parts of the Report, balance them against each other; find, conceivably, some slight. contradiction or inconsistency between one and the other; but, broadly speaking, it is quite clear to my mind that the Royal Commission desires this Committee to have full and general powers of inquiry into the past history of the person or persons recommended, into their general character, and into the nature—and in the word nature I include adequacy—of the services they may have rendered. Of course, it is no part of their function, when it is proposed by the Prime Minister to recommend a candidate for an Earldom to the Sovereign, to say that that gentleman ought not to be an Earl, but ought either owing to the excellence of his services to be a Marquess, or owing to their relative inferiority to be a Viscount. That is clearly no part of their functions.
The real explanation of the work of the Committee was given by Lord Dunedin himself when he said that this Committee is intended not to supersede the Prime Minister but to aid him in the discharge of very difficult and sometimes very embarrassing functions. It seems to me that Lord Southborough has not the dimmest idea of what a Prime Minister is and does. He speaks about him as no doubt a busy man but who has large interstices in his official occupations, and who could not better devote these interstices than to sitting in an armchair and considering, unaided by anybody except one or two of his colleagues, the persons whom he should recommend to the Sovereign for honours. The Prime Minister has a difficult task as it is. He has not many interstices I can assure my noble friend. But if his interstices are to be occupied in that way, I think you will find people increasingly reluctant to assume the burden. The present Prime Minister—I can speak for him—welcomes the appointment of this Committee as an aid to him. He is not at all anxious to place limits to the proper discharge of its functions, and within the limits laid down by the Royal Commission it will be found to be of substantial service.
I turn now for a few moments to the question which more than one noble Lord
290
has raised—the Royal Prerogative. Here I heard with great satisfaction Lord Dunedin confirm the position taken up by Viscount Haldane. I am convinced that it never entered for one moment into the mind of the Commission, certainly not, into that of His Majesty's Government, to limit, curtail, or narrow in the slightest degree the responsibility of the Crown. That is an idea that would be very distasteful not only to the Government but to every member of your Lordships' House, and when it is laid down in one part of the Report that in certain cases the only outstanding matter for the King to decide, with the Prime Minister, is the number of honours to be conferred, I am quite certain that the Royal Commission did not mean, certainly the Government in accepting their Report do not mean, that the King is not to be allowed to exercise his own judgment on the matter, is not to be allowed to make such personal inquiries as he may choose. That is fundamental and essential in the responsibilities of his high office.
What I think the Royal Commission meant was that whereas the King has hitherto had to do this unaided, officially unaided, and has been dependent solely on the advice of his Prime Minister, in future, in addition to the nomination of the Prime Minister, he will have the consciousness that that advice is supported by the recommendations of an authoritative Committee. The King's labours to that extent will be lightened, but there is no desire to abrogate or touch any portion of the Royal Prerogative.
There is one other question which Lord Southborough put. He found a certain inconsistency in the phrase which I have just quoted with the passage, in another part of the Report, that if the Committee advised against, the conferment of an honour and the Prime Minister still decided to make the recommendation the Report of the Committee should be placed in the hands of the Sovereign. His argument was that that placed rather an unfair responsibility on the Sovereign. I do not think we need concern ourselves with such a situation. I cannot conceive that it could arise. It seems to me in the highest degree improbable, if you appoint your authoritative Committee and on good grounds they decide against such and such recommendation, that the Prime

291
Minister would persist in making it over their heads. However that may be, and should such a situation arise, you must trust to the common sense and high feeling of duty of the Prime Minister, acting in consultation with the Sovereign, to settle the matter. It is not the sort of case you can predicate in advance or to solve which you have to lay down rules. I have now dealt with all the questions that have been raised in the debate.
In conclusion, let me say that the Report of the Royal Commission and the procedure they set up are, in the judgment of the Government, worthy of being given a fair trial. It is a step in the right direction. It is a step which, in our judgment, will be helpful to us and will be found equally helpful to those who follow us. I think it will tend further to enforce a greater degree of circumspection than has always been observed by Patronage Secretaries, Party managers and people in those positions. It will tend more and more to diminish, and I hope finally to eliminate the purely money aspect of titles in so far as that has existed, and I think, too, that it will have a general tendency to keep down the excessive membership of your Lordships' House.
But apart from this particular machinery, I myself attach importance to one consideration that was mentioned by a noble Lord in the course of the debate. The real check upon abuses in these matters seems to me to consist not merely—certainly not exclusively—in any machinery that you can set up, but in the improved and ever-advancing standards of honour and public duty that exist in this country. Those are our real safeguards, and it is the existence of a powerful public opinion, finding expression in this House, that has been responsible for all these movements of recent years, culminating in the appointment and Report of the Royal Commission. I only hope that in the future, as in the past few years, that high state of vigilance of public opinion will be maintained, in order to help the Royal Commission to obtain the full fruition of its excellent labours.

SUKKUR BARRAGE SCHEME.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had given Notice to ask the Secretary for India, whether the Government of India has revised its decision to embark on the Sukkur barrage irrigation scheme, consequent upon the large body of engineering opinion that criticises it adversely; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this question has been before your Lordships' House on several occasions. On the last occasion it was raised, I think, by my noble friend Lord Sydenham, who I regret is unable to be present this afternoon owing to the unpropitious weather. His presence would have been very desirable and his opinion very valuable, as he is an experienced engineer himself and is thoroughly acquainted with the conditions that prevail in Sind.
On the last occasion when this subject was debated, I believe that Lord Lytton, then Under-Secretary of State for India, stated that this scheme would not be sanctioned unless it were clearly proved that it would be a productive scheme. It has always been impossible to review this question in all its technical aspects in your Lordships' House. I have myself no expert knowledge, but I remember one remark which was made to me by Sir Archibald Geikie, that it is a very dangerous and difficult thing to organise or attempt to control a river of even ordinary dimensions. When one remembers that the Indus is one of the greatest rivers in the world and flows through the great plains of Sind, the danger and difficulty of determining what shall he its future course will be seen to be enormously enhanced.
My chief point is that those who are well acquainted with this subject do not by any means generally approve of what is known as the Sukkur barrage scheme. The consensus of opinion—passing by all the various technical details—among those with whom I have come in contact is that the scheme cannot be a productive one. On two or three occasions I presided over meetings in London—open meetings which anybody could attend—and on no single occasion was a voice raised in approval of this proposal. I want to make it clear to your Lordships that this is not because there is a general objection to the scheme in all its features, but only because it cannot be made remunerative and would entail a heavy burden upon the

293
taxpayer in India. It. has therefore been advocated, I think very reasonably, that this scheme should be referred again to a, committee of impartial experts. At present it has received only the official approval of those who are now holding high engineering office in India, but it has certainly been condemned by two Inspectors-General of Irrigation in India and by many engineers, particularly those of the Bombay Presidency, who are well acquainted with conditions in Sind.
I think, therefore, that it is a very reasonable request that this committee should be formed to go carefully into the whole question of whether the scheme, if carried out, would be productive. It is an enormous scheme—one of the biggest in the world—it involves a probable expenditure of 2,000 lakhs of rupees, that is, some £12,000,000 at least, and the amount of land which it is designed to irrigate will extend to over 5,000,000 acres. It is only fair that the scheme should be judged carefully by experts who are absolutely unbiassed and who can give a reliable assurance as to whether it can be successfully carried out.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I entirely agree with one observation that fell from my noble friend behind me; I mean his reference to the vast size and importance of this great irrigation scheme. It embraces, as he said, something like five and a third million acres in Sind, three and a third million acres of which will be new cultivation, while the cultivation of the remaining two million acres will, if the scheme is successful, be vastly improved. I understand that the desire of my noble friend is that this scheme should be once more examined by experts. My noble friend returns to the charge after, I think, no less than one and a quarter years' meditation on the subject. I think it was as long ago as that when he made the same proposal. My noble friend has a great love of experts, and wishes to pile expert on expert, but he has not yet told your Lordships that this scheme was examined by experts in the year 1913, and that it was in consequence of that examination that various alterations were made in it. That is not the whole story, because since that time different portions of the scheme have been submitted again and again to the most close and searching observation, so that
294
when the scheme finally comes out, it emerges from the fire of controversy and discussion. And yet I understand that my noble friend wishes to plunge it once more into the disturbance of fresh discussion and renewed controversy.
Why should we submit the scheme to this fresh investigation? I believe it has been stated before that the only reasons which would induce the Government of India or myself to order a fresh investigation would rest upon the fact that we were not satisfied with the advice of the experts, or that there was some disagreement among the experts themselves. Among those who are advising the Government of India and among those who are advising the local Government of Bombay there is no such disagreement. On the contrary, there is general agreement. Why then should we disturb this harmony of agreement, not always attained concerning the schemes presented in India, by ordering some new examination? The noble Lord's request is based on the fact that two or three gentlemen who held high positions in irrigation Departments in India, but who are no longer in close touch with the facts, and who are no longer serving in India, have, in some respects only—and, I think, if you examine it, in varying respects—for the last few years disagreed with some points of the scheme. I really think there can be no end to these investigations if past-masters of the art who express some criticism of those who are responsible in India for this scheme are to prevail upon us to order fresh examinations.
May I remind my noble friend that there were critics and experts who criticised the proposals of Sir Christopher Wren, somewhat severely some centuries ago? If my noble friend had had his way probably the great dome of St. Paul's would never have been built, while my noble friend was marshalling all his experts in order to criticise it afresh. I would like to ask where are you going to get these impartial experts? It is well known that India leads the world in the matter of irrigation, and if you were going to seek anywhere in the world for persons who should judge irrigation works, you would go to India. Therefore, you would be going to the same gentlemen to criticise their own operations.
I was going to suggest to my noble friend that the time had come for action instead of for fresh criticism, because this

295
scheme has already been a long time under discussion. The question of finance is, of course, of the greatest importance, in two respects—first, as to what the ultimate cost of the great undertaking is going to be—whether in the nature of twelve and a half millions or so—eighteen to twenty crores of rupees—and, secondly, as to the productiveness of the scheme. On these questions there has been a great deal of investigation in India, and of correspondence between India and the India Office, during the last year. There is a further question as to the raising of the money in India. As my noble friend knows, very large sums are now being raised by the Government of India for bringing the railways up to date, and it becomes a question of difficulty how these large sums are to be raised. I hope, however, it may soon be possible to arrive at some conclusion on the subject.
In answer to the last part of the Question, I am afraid there are no further Papers that I could, with any service to him or to your Lordships, lay upon the Table, because important Despatches were laid upon the Table over a year ago—I think in November, 1921—and since then such Papers as have passed are not Papers which are generally considered suitable to lay upon the Table. Therefore I hope my noble friend will content himself partly with the announcement that we shall soon arrive at a conclusion on the subject, partly with a re-perusal of the Papers already laid, and partly with a re-consultation with the experts whose views in some respects, he says, differ from those of the Indian experts. I hope that those three courses of inquiry may bring to him some degree of consolation.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I feared that the answer of the noble Viscount would be of the character of that which he has delivered, but I cannot understand to what he was referring when he spoke of the opinion given by experts in 1913. I suppose he was referring to the Committee which then considered the question. But that is just the point. It is not their scheme which is being carried out. The present scheme is a rushed scheme brought forward during the war. That is the whole point. The scheme of the Committee which sat in 1913 was quite different. The main point of difference between the two schemes is that the barrage should not be commenced simultaneously
296
with the cutting of the canal, because the enormous cost of the barrage would render the work unproductive, and you could not get the benefit of the flow of water until the barrage and the canal were completed.
Then the noble Viscount asked me what experts I would get. I may mention that two Inspectors-General of Irrigation in India are over here now. Mr. Gebbie is coming over here now, and, I believe, Mr. Riew, the present Commissioner of Sind. It is a very favourable opportunity for having the matter considered by a Committee. All material has been obtained, and it would not take very long for them to consider these different points. I think that my noble friend would sleep more quietly to-night if he felt that he had behind him not only those who hold office, and who cannot therefore help being biassed, but also the general consensus of opinion of men of the highest reputation who also have held similar posts of importance in India. It is an important matter, and if such a course were adopted it would allay a great deal of anxiety as to the future.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, if I were unable to sleep because of the disagreement of experts I should spend very few nights indeed in helpful slumber, but I would point out, in reply to my noble friend, who talks about it being a different scheme, that it is a different scheme because it was re-shaped in order to take advantage of comments which had been made, and that it is only different in that respect. Your Lordships will not wish me to go into very technical details, otherwise I should be very glad to discuss not only whether the canals should be built before the barrage, or the barrage before the canals, or whether they should be built simultaneously, or which canal should be built first, or what should be the exact position of the barrage. They are all highly technical matters of detail, unsuitable for discussion here, but I have had the advantage of discussing these problems with Mr. Gebbie, Inspector-General of Irrigation, who has come over, and I speak having had the advantages of long consultation with that gentleman.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUBSIDY TO IBN SAUD.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government when a subsidy was first paid to Ibn Saud; what was the original object of granting the subsidy, and whether its continuance is not resented by King Hussein, our Ally in the late war. I understand that previous to the war Ibn Saud was a friend of the present King Hussein, King of the Hejas, that he used to write friendly letters, and to make demands of money in them, some of which were granted. Then came the war and the recognition of Hussein as King of the Hejas, which apparently created a feeling of jealousy in the mind of Ibn Saud. To keep him quiet this subsidy of £6,000 a month in gold wars given to him. The result is that the present position has made King Hussein rather worried, because he, with whom we kept in close alliance throughout the war, does not receive any subsidy, while Ibn Saud, who has developed au unfriendly demeanour and rivalry, is receiving one. It seems to me, therefore, very unfortunate that a potentate who is our friend, and who acted loyally throughout the war, should be placed distinctly at a disadvantage, compared with Ibn Saud, who, with this large subsidy, no doubt can maintain a very considerable military force, and thereby piece King Hussein at a great disadvantage. I therefore would ask whether it would not be better to withdraw the subsidy to Ibn Saud, if it is still being continued, or else to give a subsidy to our friend the King of the Hejaz also.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this debate because on the last occasion when the question of subsidies to Arab sheikhs was mooted in this House I spoke and received an assurance from the Government then in power that these subsidies would be reduced at the earliest possible moment. At that time the question of the Geddes Report was in our minds, and we were all very anxious that expenditure should be reduced wherever possible. I was then of opinion (and still hold the opinion) that, although these subsidies were extremely useful during the war, they were becoming rather a menace than of any potential use in the future.
298
The noble Lord, Lord Lamington, spoke as if this jealousy between King Hussein and Ibn Saud was a new thing. I know something about this subject, because I was in Arabia during the war and studied the question. It was a good deal over a century ago that Thu Saud's ancestor, who was also a Mohamedan Saud of the day, went to Mecca and compelled the Sherif of the time to do homage to him. It was to keep Ibn Saud and the Wahabis from Mecca that the Turks eventually decided on the expedition to Nejd, which was organised by Mehemet Ali, who was Khedive of Egypt. This jealousy between Ibn Saud and the Sherifian family is a long-standing feud of many generations. Of course, I know nothing of the real reasons, but I understand that the reason given why King Hussein gets no subsidy while Ibn Saud does is that Ibn Saud is able to do considerable damage to King Feisal, the son of the Sherif, if he likes to interfere on the Euphrates. No doubt, by giving him a subsidy, we have some little hold on Ibn Saud, for, if we do not give him a subsidy, he can create trouble on the Euphrates and in Mesopotamia.
I do not wish to embarrass the Government in any way by anything I may say on this question of Mesopotamia, but the question of subsidies to Arab sheikhs is very closely related to the question of our ova-ovation of Upper Mesopotamia. I am of opinion that it would be a foolish thing to reduce the subsidy paid to Ibn Saud while we are still in occupation of Upper Mesopotamia. Perhaps this is not the time to make any remarks about Mesopotamia. The Government are at the present moment sufficiently anxious about the many unfortunate legacies which have come to them from the war and which were continued under the late Government. I feel sure, however, that they are on the look-out for any suitable opportunity of carrying out the promises made of eventual withdrawal.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, a subsidy was first paid to Ibn Saud, the Sultan of Nejd, during the war. The object of the subsidy was to assist bins in his operations against the Turks and their adherents. I should like to take this opportunity of reminding your Lordship that Ibn Saud was the loyal Ally of His Majesty's Government during the

299
war, and that since the conclusion of the war he has maintained the same friendly attitude. But the whole question of the policy of the Government in the matter of subsidies to Arab rulers is at present under consideration, and I should prefer to express no opinion on the merits of the question at the moment. The matter is one of very considerable delicacy, it has to be treated from a wide point of view, and I trust that before very long, in connection with the policy of the Government in the Middle East, I shall be able to make a statement on this, as well as on other important subjects connected with that vast problem.
[From Minutes of March 6.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
South Oxfordshire Water and Gas. [H.L.]
Felixstowe Dock and Railway. [H.L.]
London and South Western Railway. [H.L.]
North Eastern Railway. [H.L.]
South Staffordshire Mond Gas. [H.L.]
Swanage Gas and Electricity. [H.L.]
Thomas Cheshire and Company (Delivery Warrants). [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
Report from, with an Appendix made, and to be printed.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.