Sitting of 5 August 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
West Cheshire Water Bill,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Bill,
Croydon Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 21st July, and agreed to.
Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered:
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Edinburgh Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  COTTON CARGOES (GOVERNMENT COMPENSATION).
  Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade to what cause he attributes the loss of £933,000 in the sales of assorted cotton cargoes during the period May, 1915, to 31st March, 1923, which loss was equal to more than one-third of the cost of purchasing the cotton concerned?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): The total payment £933,000 represents the difference between the proceeds of the sale of
  2716
  cargoes of cotton which were diverted by the Admiralty in the early months of 1915 by agreement with the United States Government and the compensation paid to the owners. It was due to the obligation of His Majesty's Government to compensate the shippers of the cotton at prices which proved to be in excess of the sums realised by the sale of the cotton on arrival, this market at the time being severely depressed.
  Mr. HANNON: Could the right hon. Gentleman issue to the public of this country some statement giving the whole story of this tragic piece of economics?
  Mr. WEBB: As to the nature of these transactions, I would remind the hon. Member that this was an act of war, and if you are going to consider the assets and liabilities of the proceeding, I think you would have to take a great many other things into account.

  WHEAT AND FLOUR.
  Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the sudden increase in the price of bread, he will state the storxage capacity for wheat and flour in this country, and the amount of wheat and flour at present in stock?
  Mr. WEBB: There is no means of estimating accurately the total storage capacity which might be made available for wheat and flour in case of necessity. It was reported by the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies that, at one time in 1917, between 14 and 15 weeks' supply of grain and flour was held in this country, in addition to stocks held by bakers and retailers and on farms. As regards the second part of the question, the stocks reported as held in the granaries at the ports on 1st July, 1924 (the latest date for which information is at present available), amounted to rather over 1,000,000 quarters, being greater by more than a half than those similarly held a year earlier. This, however, amounts only to a small proportion of the aggregate amount of wheat and flour in this country at any time.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: With regard to the first part of the question, has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries as to whether an increase may be apprehended to-day or during the week?
  Mr. WEBB: An increase of what?
  Sir K. WOOD: In the price of bread.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Surely the information as to storage capacity was obtained during the War, and we have later information from the Royal Commission?
  Mr. WEBB: I am sorry to say that I cannot find any later information than 1917 that will give an authoritative estimate. That was, of course, a comparatively late period in the War.
  Mr. WELLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this time of the year the wheat supplies in this country are shorter than at any other time, and that in the winter time farmers hold about 15,000,000 cwts. of wheat in stock on the farms? Now we have not got those stocks, and does it not seem advisable to bring forward some scheme whereby the reserves of wheat should not be allowed to go below a certain point?
  Mr. WEBB: The last suggestion raises a very large issue of policy, which has been frequently investigated, and has never been found either desirable or practicable hitherto. With regard to the estimate of the total amount of wheat and grain in this country, I would remind the hon. Member that, whatever may be the actual position of the farmers' supplies in this country, they amount to only a small proportion of the available stock from which the country is fed.
  Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the increased imports of wheat and flour from the Argentine owing to the favourable rate of exchange, he will state what additional area is now under wheat cultivation in that country as compared with last year?
  Mr. WEBB: The Argentine wheat crop is harvested in the early part of the calendar year, and no definite information is yet available regarding the acreage under wheat cultivation for the purposes of the next harvest. According to official statistics published by the Argentine Government, the wheat area harvested in that country in the cereal year 1023–4 amounted to 17,216,000 acres,
  2718
  an increase of 1,276,000 acres as compared with 1922–3.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered any scheme for the erection of elevators?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
  Captain Viscount CURZON: From the statement which the right hon. Gentle man made just now, that the Government have no more recent record than that for 1917, are we to understand that no steps have been taken to safeguard the archives of the late Ministry of Food?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise. This question relates to the Argentine.
  Lieut. - Colonel Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether the estimated excess in the Argentine wheat crop this year exceeds 5,000,000 tons; and whether this excess is equal to the estimated shortage in the North American crop;
  (2) whether, taking the estimated wheat crop of the world this year into consideration, there is anything to account for the recent rise in price beyond the action of speculators on the market in North America?
  Mr. WEBB: Should the more authoritative of the recent estimates of the forthcoming harvest in the United States and Canada be realised, the wheat crops of those countries will fall short of last year s yield by about 5,000,000 tons. The estimated total quantity exported or available for export from Argentina from the last crop is also about 5,000,000 tons. The amount by which that crop exceeded the preceding one was 1,500,000 tons. No estimate can at present be formed of the Argentine crop now in the ground, but it is reported that the area is larger than last season and that prospects so far are satisfactory. It is the uncertainty as regards the Canadian crop which had led to the recent rise in prices, but I would remind the hon. Member that the Canadian crops of 1918, 1919 and 1920 were below this year's official estimate. As I have already stated in reply to similar questions last week, the present available information does not indicate that there need be any apprehension as regards supplies in the near future.

  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  Sir JOHN PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. E. Clark Revell, of Liverpool, whose claim for reparations amounting to £640 has been treated as belated although he has submitted evidence to prove that his delay in claiming was due to absence in remote parts; and, if so, will this fact be taken into consideration in assessing the amount to be paid to him?
  Mr. WEBB: Mr. Revell's first application to the Reparation Claims Department was on 22nd February, 1923, after the final date for admission of claims (30th December, 1922), and after payment of awards out of the £5,000,000 had commenced. As Mr. Revell had been in England in 1922 from 25th January to 28th February; from 31st July to 14th August; and from 30th September to 9th October, the Royal Commission did not consider that there were exceptional circumstances of excuse for the delay. His claim will receive careful consideration in conjunction with other belated claims. I may add that in 1917 a disablement allowance of £11 a month was awarded to Mr. Revell in respect of nerve trouble caused by the torpedoing of his ship. This allowance was continued for five months, after which the claim was settled by payment of a lump sum of £150. Mr. Revell also received £50 for loss of his effects.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC, UNITED STATES.
  Mr. LEIF JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamer "Lyntown" left Glasgow in January of this year with a cargo of spirits consigned to Hamburg, and that this cargo was not landed at Hamburg but, notwithstanding the fact that a certificate of landing was given by the British Consul, the spirits were transported in the same ship to the coast of America for sale, free of ditty, on the high seas; and what action does he propose to take to stop this traffic?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I have been asked to answer this question. I find on inquiry that there is no record of a steamer of this name having left Glasgow in January of this year. As
  2720
  regards the last part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Black) on the 29th July.
  Mr. JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to what action is taken by the Government or by the Department to see that the terms of the bond which is signed by exporters are really carried out, because my information is that they are not?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly, I will make inquiries, but, as I think I informed my right hon. Friend a day or two ago, this matter is under investigation, and it really raises a very large subject.
  Mr. JONES: Is not the question of the bond which is signed by the exporter, in itself, quite a small question; and is the hon. Gentleman aware that in numerous cases the terms of the bond signed by the exporter are not, if my information is correct, carried out?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly, I agree that that is a narrower point, and I will undertake to make inquiry on that, and inform the right hon. Gentleman.

  BRITISH TRADE (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
  Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the President- of the Board of Trade what are the professions and trades of the members of the Committee of Inquiry upon British Trade?
  Mr. WEBB: If the hon. Member will permit me, I will have a statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the information for which he asks. Since the announcement which I made last week on the subject of the Committee, Mr. J. T. Brownlie has accepted the Government's invitation to become a member, and the Committee is now complete.
  Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that there are a great number of very important industries, employing very large numbers of workpeople, who are not represented on the Committee at all?
  Mr. WEBB: The number of industries in the country is so large that it is quite

  2721
  impossible to have representatives of even the most important on any committee of inquiry. The Committee has not been formed on the basis of the representation of separate industries, but of several bodies which are competent to consider all the evidence on the subject.
  Following is the statement promised:

  COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY AND TRADE.
  Sir Arthur Balfour, K.B.E., J.P., Chairman and Managing Director of Arthur Balfour and Company, Limited, Capital and Dannemora Steel Works, Sheffield.
  Mr. John Baker, Assistant Secretary, Iron and Steel Trades Confederation.
  Sir W. H. Beveridge, K.C.B., Director, London School of Economics.
  Mr. Henry Boothman, General Secretary, Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners and Twiners.
  Mr. J. T. Brownlie, President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union.
  Mr. W. T. Charter, a Director of the Cooperative Wholesale Society, Limited.
  Mr. C. T. Cramp, General Secretary, National Union of Railwaymen.
  Mr. Hugh Dalton, D.Sc., Lecturer in the Commerce and Industry Department, London School of Economics.
  Sir Harry Goschen, K.B.E., of Goschens and Cunliffe, Merchants and Foreign Bankers, Chairman of the National Provincial and Union Bank of England.
  Mrs. M. A. Hamilton, late of Newnham College, Cambridge, Author and Journalist.
  Mr. F. A. Hargreaves, President of the Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Association.
  Sir Norman Hill, Bart., Vice-President of the Chamber of Shipping, and former Secretary of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association.
  Sir John S. Hindley, a Director of Stephenson, Clarke and Company, Limited, Coal Factors.
  Mr. David Landale, a Director of Matheson and Company, Limited, General Merchants.
  Sir William Clare Lees, O.B.E., a Director of the Bleachers' Association.
  Mr. P. J. Pybus, C.B.E., Managing Director of the English Electric Company, Limited.
  Mr. Arthur Shaw, General Secretary of the National Union of Textile Workers, Bradford.
  Sir Allan Smith, K.B.E., Chairman of Managing Committee, Engineering Employers' Federation.
  Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, G.C.B., Chief Economic Adviser to His Majesty's Government.
  Note.—It will be understood that the Committee has not been constituted on a representative basis, the members having been invited to serve in their individual capacities.

  IRISH CATTLE (SHIPPING CONDITIONS).
  Mr. ROYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the conditions under which cattle are shipped from the ports of Ireland to this country; and will he make representations to the governments of Ireland with a view to improving the conditions?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I have been asked to reply. The transit of animals from Ireland to this country is controlled by Orders issued by the Irish Governments and by my Department. All three Governments maintain inspectors to see that animals are humanely carried and the small number of casualties, for cattle only 1·4 per 1,000, indicates that their efforts are successful. The British and Irish Governments are constantly in communication in order to improve the conditions of the trade, but unfortunately the carriage of animals by sea is exceedingly difficult and when heavy weather is experienced casualties occur even on the largest ships.

  JAPAN (LUXURY TARIFF).
  Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade what notice was given by the Japanese Government of its intention to enforce the new luxury tariff; whether he is aware that many contracts for forward delivery of British manufactured goods have been cancelled by Japanese buyers; and whether, in view of the hardship caused thereby to British manufacturers, His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Japanese

  2723
  Government with a view to obtaining an extension of the time before the tariff comes into operation?
  Mr. WEBB: The Japanese Bill for the new luxury duties was introduced on 6th July, and the duties came into force on 31st July. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone on the 30th ultimo, a copy of which I am sending to him. It will be seen that a concession has already been secured, and that the British Government are endeavouring to obtain some further mitigation of the adverse effect due to the introduction of the new duties at short notice.
  Mr. HANNON: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the case of particular trades, like the Birmingham gun trade, which is very seriously affected, and make representations to the Japanese Government to stop the operation of this tariff?
  Mr. WEBB: That has already been done. We cannot say what the answer will be, but we are hopeful that some further concession will be made.
  Sir F. WISE: What will the approximate increase per cent. be?
  Mr. WEBB: I am sorry to say I have not that information. In view of the nature of the duties it would be very difficult to work it out.
  Captain BERKELEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider circulating his answers on the subject to hon. Members on the other side of the House to consider in connection with their agitation for Protection?
  Sir J. NALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think this action of the Japanese is a good reason for dropping the duties on Japanese glass-ware coming into this country?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DEPTFORD CATTLE MARKET.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the negotiations between the Army Council and the City Corporation for the purchase of the Deptford cattle market area
    2724
    have been concluded; and, if so, will he state the purchase price and the use to which the property is to be put by the Army Council?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Walsh): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The purchase price cannot be agreed, and will therefore be referred to arbitration. As regards the last part of the question, the premises are to be acquired for the receipt, storage and issue in peace and war of supplies of food and forage, and of medical and other consumable stores.

    WOOLWICH DOCKYARD AND CHILWELL DEPOT (STAFF).
    Mr. LORIMERasked the Secretary of State for War when the Committee which is inquiring into the effect on the staff concerned of Woolwich dockyard will present its final Report; and if the condition of Chilwell depot has been considered by the Committee?
    Mr. WALSH: I understand that the Report of the Committee referred to is now in the hands of the printers. The question of the disposal of the Chilwell staff was not within the terms of reference to the Committee and was not considered by them. I would point out that Chilwell is in a different position from Woolwich, especially in view of the fact that it did not exist before the War, and very few of the men employed there have any pre-War service.
    Mr. LORIMER: Does that mean that ex-service men at Chilwell will be thrown out on to the streets while the country is over-run with aliens?
    Mr. WALSH: I do rot know what the hon. Member means by "thrown out on to the streets." The people have been employed, but when the work itself vanishes by effluxion of time it is impossible to keep the people there. That is a policy which, of course, has not been initiated by the present Government, and it was not done because of a double dose of original sin. It is simply because it is inevitable.

    LIEUTENANT GLENDINNING.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state what action is pro-

    2725
    posed to be taken as a result of his Report to His Majesty in reference to the appeal of Lieutenant Glendinning for a committee, or commission, of inquiry into the allegations made by him against certain officers and others in His Majesty's service?
    Mr. WALSH: It is not proposed to take any further action of the nature suggested. I regret that I was unable to advise His Majesty to issue any special instructions in regard to this officer's petition.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Has not my right. hon. Friend considered, in view of the great public interest in this man's case, referring the whole of his complaint to some outside legal gentleman to investigate?
    Mr. HEALY: Why has not the public inquiry proceeded? There must be something rotten in the state of Denmark.
    Mr. WALSH: I understand my hon. Friend to suggest that it may be possible to refer the whole of the agreed papers relevant to the case to some single authority, not a commission or committee of inquiry, but the agreed relevant papers to some single person, who will go into the whole case and report. If that is the line he suggests, I will certainly give it my best consideration.

    WAR OFFICE AND LULWORTH COVE.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state whether the War Office intends to accept the judgment of Mr. Justice Sankey and evacuate the Tanks Corps from Lulworth?
    Mr. WALSH: I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for West Woolwich.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he gave yesterday was not correct. He said the school will not interfere with the amenities of the coast. Has he been able to satisfy himself with regard to the tanks firing?
    Mr. WALSH: I did not say they did not interfere with the amenities of the coast. I said so far as the Cove itself was concerned—cove not coast.
    Major COLFOX: Is it not a fact that the retention of this camp for tank purposes is a very great nuisance to fishermen, and also a danger; and is it not a fact that an expert from the War Office itself has declared that the camp is entirely unsuitable for the purpose?

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (SEPARATION ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. BLUNDELLasked the Secretary of State for War what was the date on which separation allowance for Territorial soldiers was put on the same basis as that for Regular soldiers?
    Mr. WALSH: This was done in June, 1920, by Army Order 260 of that year.
    Mr. BLUNDELL: Was not the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Secretary wrong when he said no such Order was issued in 1920?
    Mr. WALSH: I am not at all sure that he said that. I wish the hon. Member had directed my attention to that error, if it was committed, but Members on all sides make occasional mistakes.

    ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANIES (STATISTICAL RETURNS).
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for the publication in the Board of Trade Journal, or in any more convenient form, of the statistical returns made by electric supply companies to the Electricity Commissioners?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I have been asked to answer this question. For some time past the Commissioners have been engaged in compiling administrative, engineering and financial statistics relating to electricity supply undertakings in Great Britain. The compilations are now practically complete and the Commissioners expect to be in a position to publish the statistics within the next month or two.
    Mr. WHITE: In what form will they be published?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am not quite sure about that.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: Is it not a fact that publications already exist ties containing most of the information that in is required?

  SCOTLAND.

    DALKEITH HOUSING SCHEMES.
    Mr. CLARKEasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health the reason why the final instalments of the Dalkeith housing schemes are still unpaid; and, as it is four years since the contracts were fixed, will he now take steps for the remeasurements being completed so that the contractors may receive payment of the amounts still due?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The final measurements for Dalkeith housing scheme under the Housing, Town Planning, Etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, have not yet been submitted to the Scottish Board of Health for approval. The local authority by whom the final payments fall to be made, have already been reminded on the matter and a further communication has been addressed to them. On receipt of the final measurements they will have immediate attention from the Board.

    TEACHERS (QUALIFIED AND UNQUALIFIED).
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) the number of unqualified teachers in the service of Scottish education authorities in the years 1913–14 and 1923–24 respectively;
    (2) the number of qualified teachers in the service of Scottish education authori-

    NUMBER OF TEACHERS recognised under the Regulations for the Preliminary Education, etc., of Teachers on the Staff in the year 1913–14.

    Certificated Teachers.

    Provisionally Certificated and Assistant Teachers. (Article 79.)

    Total.

    Teachers who are Graduates of a Recognised University.

    Teachers who are not Graduates Recognised University.

    Men.

    Women.

    Men.

    Women.

    Men.

    Women.

    Men.

    Women.

    5,355

    14,893

    46

    479

    2,131

    1,219

    3,270

    14,153

    Figures for the year 1923–24 are not yet ready. The following figures for 1922–23 are the latest available:
    the years 1913–14 and 1923–24 respectively, distinguishing men and women teachers, graduates, non-graduates and teachers of special subjects?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): As the answers to these questions are long and of a statistical nature, I will, with the Noble Lady's permission, have them circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the answers:
    21. Unqualified Teachers.—There are no available statistics for the year 1913–14 showing the number of unqualified teachers employed, and figures for the year 1923–24 are not yet ready. But of the 25,375 teachers in schools under the management of education authorities at 31st March, 1923, 253 men and 574 women had no definite status under the Department's Regulations. It does not, however, follow that these teachers were not qualified to perform the duties on which they were engaged. More than 40 of them were actually University graduates, while a considerable number were employed in special schools, or as teachers (often part-time) of special subjects, such as music, manual work and physical exercises. 209 were engaged in side schools, and others were serving a probationary period in ordinary schools preliminary to the consideration of their claims for definite recognition.
    22. Qualified Teachers.—For the year 1913–14 the only figures available are those relating to teachers in schools conducted under the Day Schools Code, and are as follows:

    NUMBER OF TEACHERS on the staff on 31st March, 1923, in schools under the management of Education Authorities who were recognised under the Regulations for the Preliminary Education, etc., of Teachers.

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    Of the total in Column 5:

    Chapter III. (General Certificate.) (See also Columns 2(a) and 3(a.)

    Chapter V. (Special Certificate.)

    Chapter VI. (Technical Certificate.)

    Chapter X. Article 71 ("Assistant Teachers.").

    Total.

    Teachers who are Graduates of a Recognised University.

    Teachers who are not Graduates of a Recognised University.

    Men.

    Women.

    Men.

    Women.

    Men.

    Women.

    Men.

    Women.

    Men.

    Women.

    Men.

    Women.

    Men.

    Women.

    (a) Also recognised under Chap. III.

    (a) Also recognised under Chap. III.

    3,766

    16,544

    1,189

    433

    38

    28

    3

    78

    5,906

    18,642

    2,750

    2,126

    3,156

    16,516

    (b) Not recognised undder Chap. III.

    (b) Not recognised under Chap. III.

    —

    —

    354

    448

    556

    1,111

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    It should be noted that these figures relate to all schools conducted by education authorities, whereas the figures for 1913–14 refer only to those conducted under the Day School Code. As regards the first Table, it should further be noted that none of the teachers recognised under Article 79 would be recognised under the present Regulations unless they had qualified under Article 71 thereof or become certificated.

    ORINSAY SETTLEMENT (SCHOOL FACILITIES).
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now taken steps to construct the necessary road to enable the children in the Board of Agriculture settlement at Orinsay, Island of Lewis, to attend school; and, if not, when he intends to take the necessary action to enable these children to attend school?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am informed by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland that the construction of an access path to the township of Orinsay has now been commenced.

    LOCHBOISDALE PIER, SOUTH UIST.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the
    2730
    present position of the negotiations for the reopening of Lochboisdale pier, South Uist; whether the necessary repairs have been commenced; and, in view of the fact that the pier has now been closed to the usual traffic since the 15th April, and great inconvenience and loss has resulted to the traders and general public of Uist, will he state when the pier is likely to be reopened?
    Mr. ADAMSON: As the answer is long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: May we know now whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us when he expects to have this pier reopened? It is causing great distress.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am quite willing to read the reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Give a summary.
    Following is the answer:
    The present position of the negotiations for the opening of Lochboisdale pier is briefly as follows. With a view to assisting to meet the difficulties the Board of

    2731
    Agriculture further examined a suggested arrangement for keeping open the eastern part of the pier and were satisfied that it was practicable. They then proposed to the agents of the proprietrix, with the authority of the Treasury and myself, that the question of reopening this part of the pier should be reconsidered on the understanding that, subject to the settlement of the precise terms of their undertaking, the Board would accept liability for any damage to persons, livestock and goods and to steamers and other vessels using the pier. In making this suggestion the Board stated that the question of obtaining powers to constitute a pier authority to take over the pier is receiving attention, but that this would necessarily take some considerable time. In reply the agents of the proprietrix have informed the Board that she does not see her way to take the responsibility of reopening the pier in its present state, even if such an obligation were given by the Board to accept responsibility for all damage. She is advised that a reopening or partial reopening of the pier in its present condition would be highly dangerous and that the pier ought not to be used until it has been thoroughly repaired. The agents add that the proprietrix is most anxious to give every facility for reopening as soon as possible, and she renews her offer to make over the pier either to the Board or to any other public body approved by her. Neither the Board nor any other authority possesses power at present to take over the pier, and while I fully appreciate the difficulties suffered by the public in South Uist, I am unable, in view of the reply to the Board's offer, to say when the pier is likely to be reopened.

    SPIROCHÆTOSIS (EAST LOTHIAN COALFIELD).
    Mr. CLARKEasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that the Medical Research Council have now completed their inquiry into the cause of spirochætosis, or infective jaundice, which broke out in the East Lothian coalfield over a year ago, and have issued a report; and, in view of its nature, if he will recommend to the Secretary of State for the Home Department the inclusion of this disease under the industrial diseases schedule for compensation purposes?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I understand that the Medical Research Council have not yet completed their investigations or issued a report regarding infective jaundice. The second part of the question, accordingly, does not meantime arise, but the report in question will be considered by the Departments concerned as soon as it is available.
    Mr. CLARKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry again, as I understand the report has been issued?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I can assure my hon. Friend that he is wrong.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD LOCOMOTIVES, FIFE.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to draft by-laws drawn up by the County Council of Fife, under which it is proposed that no locomotives within the meaning of the Locomotives Act, 1865, and the Locomotives on Highwarys Act, 1896, shall, without the permission in writing of the road surveyor of the district committee of the County of Fife, be used on or driven along any highways in the said county at any time or any days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. during the months of June, July and August in any year; and whether, seeing that this proposed Regulation will severely handicap the timber industry, which is of great importance to many rural districts, he will withhold his approval of the by-laws until this Regulation has been modified?
    Mr. GOSLING: I have been asked to reply to this question. By-laws of the nature indicated have been submitted to me for confirmation, and I have also received numerous objections to their confirmation. The matter is at present under consideration, and I will communicate my decision to the Noble Lady in due course.

    STREET TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (LONDON AND GLASGOW).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Minister of Transport whether it is the intention of his Department to issue regulations similar to those in operation in Glasgow and elsewhere, whereby mechanically-propelled vehicles are not permitted to pass stationary tramcars engaged in putting down passengers?
    Mr. GOSLING: I have no power to issue regulations similar to those referred to. It would require legislation to enable me to do so, and I am not satisfied that such legislation is desirable.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: May we take it that it is of less importance to protect life and limb in London than in Glasgow?

    BIRMINGHAM-WORCESTER CANAL.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to make a statement on the attitude of the Government towards the proposed scheme for the enlargement of the Birmingham-Worcester canal; and whether, in the event of the project receiving the support of his Department, he will expedite the preliminary arrangements by every means at his disposal so that employment may be provided for men now out of work in the coming winter?
    Mr. GOSLING: I hope shortly to be in a position to announce the decision of the Government with regard to this important scheme, but having regard to the fact that private Bill legislation will be necessary to enable the scheme to be carried out, I am afraid that the proposed works could not in any case be undertaken during the coining winter.
    Mr. HANNON: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the statement which he received on the subject from the Corporation of Birmingham a few days ago?

    MOTOR SPEED LIMIT (LOUGHTON, BUCKS).
    Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the danger to school children living at Loughton, near Bletchley, Bucks, in having to cross Watling Street on their way to school; is he aware that the Loughton Parish Council have been trying without success to get a speed limit for motors imposed for the cross-roads at Loughton; and will he take steps to safeguard these children by imposing a speed limit for motors over these dangerous cross-roads?
    Mr. GOSLING: My attention has not previously been directed to this matter, nor has any application for a speed limit at these cross-roads been received in my Department. Any application in this case would have to be made through the county council.

    SCHOOL CHILDREN (RAILWAY FARES).
    Mr. DUNNICOasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the school-leaving age having been raised during recent years to 14, he is prepared to make representations to the railway companies with a view to all children of school age being allowed to travel at half fare?
    Mr. GOSLING: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for the Houghton-le-Spring Division yesterday, the Railway Rates Tribunal have recently approved the railway companies' proposal that half fares should be restricted to children under 12 years of age. In these circumstances, I am not in a position to make representations to the companies in the matter, but I am sending to them a copy of my hon. Friend's question and this answer.

    NORTH LONDON (FATAL ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. BROADasked the Minister of Transport the total number of fatal road accidents which have occurred from 1913 to 1923 on the high road from Dalston Junction to Stamford Hill, from thence to the Tottenham boundary, and thence to the Edmonton boundary; what is the average number per mile in each section and the relative traffic density as shown by the last census of traffic; and how far these accidents have been attributed to the condition of the tramway track under the control of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Electric Tramways Company in each section?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I have been asked to reply. The fatalities from 1913 to 1923 are as follow:

    (1) Dalston Junction to Stamford Hill

    16

    (2) Stamford Hill to West Green Road

    8

    (3) Broad Lane to Edmonton Boundary

    19

    The averages are approximately:

    Per Mile.

    First section

    12·8

    Second section

    5·3

    Third section

    nearly 10

    In the second section one accident was attributed to the condition of the tramway track belonging to the Metropolitan Electric Tramways Company as lessee.

    2735
    A census of traffic has not been taken to cover the several sections, but sections 1 and 3 are of heavy density, the other of medium density.
    Mr. BECKER: Was there only one accident caused by tramcars or through tramcars?
    Mr. DAVIES: That is the information at my disposal.

    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE (RAILWAY BRIDGES).
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the crown and approaches of railway bridges on main roads in South Staffordshire; whether he is aware that the railway companies refuse to keep these roads in ordinary repair; and, if he possesses insufficient powers to enforce maintenance in proper condition to meet existing traffic, will he introduce regulations to meet the position?
    Mr. GOSLING: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the bridges in South Staffordshire to which the complaints refer, I will have inquiry made into the circumstances and see whether any action can usefully be taken.

    NORTH CIRCULAR ROAD.
    Mr. BROADasked the Minister of Transport when it is intended to proceed with the construction of the section of the North Circular Road to connect Essex and Middlesex; whether he is aware that a great extent of this road is completed and is waiting for this connecting link; and whether he is aware that much heavy traffic from East to West has to traverse the City in consequence of the lack of adequate bridges and roads crossing the River Lee?
    Mr. GOSLING: Tenders are being invited for the construction of this part of the North Circular Road, and the work is to go forward this autumn as one of the schemes to which the London County Council is contributing as a means of absorbing unemployed from the administrative county of London.

    GREAT WESTERN ROAD.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether he can state when the Great Western Road will be open to through traffic?
    Mr. GOSLING: I would refer the Noble Lord to the answer which I gave on 31st July to the hon. Member for Bromley, of which I am sending him a copy.

    ARTERIAL ROADS (LEVEL CROSSINGS).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport if he can now indicate which level crossings over the main arterial roads he proposes to deal with; when work will be commenced in each case; which level crossings he desires to approach the railway companies about; and what is the attitude of the railway companies towards the proposal generally?
    Mr. GOSLING: Until negotiations now in progress with highway authorities are more advanced, I am unable to give the Noble Lord the detailed information for which he asks.
    Viscount CURZON: May we take it that the Minister will use every effort to press ahead with this during the Recess, and that it will not be pigeonholed and allowed to be forgotten?

    PENSIONS (SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE REGULATIONS).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has undertaken to remodel the regulations governing the Special Grants Committee; and whether he will state on what date the amended regulations will be available?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Mr. J. W. Muir): Certain amendments to the Regulations governing the Special Grants Committee have been under consideration, and will be published as early as practicable.

    HOUSING (RENTS).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Prime Minister if he intends to provide facilities for legislation in the autumn for the reduction of rents to the pre-war rates in the case of houses built previous to the war; and if he is aware that many thousands of those houses are more than 50 years old, and that they are let at rentals much in excess of that charged in the first five years of their existence?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): No, Sir. No such legislation is in contemplation for the Autumn Session.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is that another Labour scheme gone west?
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how urgent this problem is in consideration of the difficult circumstances in which so many of the working classes are situated to-day?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Government are well aware of the real grievances referred to in the question; but the present Government cannot command anything like a majority in this House to carry through legislation of the kind.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have never announced a policy on this subject, and does he not consider that it is somewhat cowardly—if I may use that expression—to put off the responsibility of the Government on to the other parties in this House?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the sneering remarks from both sides, will the right hon. Gentleman make them—[interruption.]
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great hardship is being felt by a large number of working-class families in industrial areas owing to the high rents they are charged for had old houses, and does not this matter constitute a very urgent problem to be dealt with, a problem more urgent than some of the questions with which the Government have already dealt?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.
    Mr. MAXTON: Arising out of the answer to the question, does the right hon. Gentleman not know from the expressions of opinion which he has heard in this House that there is a demand that legislation along the lines indicated should be introduced?
    Mr. BECKER: Are the Government in favour of charging pre-War rents for old houses: and do they say that they are not able to do so because they have not got a majority?
    Mr. CLYNES: I will offer no answer to that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—but it is because of the enormity of the difficulties that I can offer no prospect whatever now of the Government undertaking this in the Autumn Session.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It would not be in order then to raise any matter which involves legislation.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment to-morrow.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a matter that requires legislation.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I am concerned now with the question of present legislation, in so far as the present Act provides that, where rents are increased, there should be to a certain degree proper sanitary conditions to justify the increase of rent which is charged?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If I can find that anything of that kind can be done without legislation, I will certainly consider the question.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Should I be in order, on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, in drawing the attention of the Government to the number of houses in an unsanitary condition and asking various questions about the rents of those houses?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot discuss that at Question Time, but I will certainly consider it.

    IRISH TREATY.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the views of the Government as to the early passage of legislation to carry out the intentions of the Irish Treaty?
    Mr. CLYNES: My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary hopes to make a statement on this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment the day after to-morrow.
    Captain BENN: If a statement is not to be made until the Motion for Adjournment, will it not be too late then to introduce any legislation?
    Mr. CLYNES: It will not be too late to introduce legislation.
    Captain BENN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Motion for Adjournment, if carried, terminates the business of the House.
    Mr. CLYNES: On that Motion my right hon. Friend will make a statement.
    Captain BENN: Am I not right in assuming that, if the statement is postponed until the Adjournment Motion, no further legislation will be introduced?
    Mr. CLYNES: I cannot anticipate events so far as to answer that part of the question.
    Mr. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Treaty of Limerick, which is the only previous treaty Which was ever made with Ireland, was broken before
    "the ink wherewith 'twas writ was dry."
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Should not the Members of this House have at least the right of determining whether legislation shall be introduced or not? Should not the House be allowed to express an opinion as to the urgency of this matter, and if it is left to the Adjournment day, then the House will have no such opportunity.
    Mr. FERGUSON: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Member playing to the gallery? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!']

    PERFUMERY (SPIRIT DUTY REBATE).
    Mr. LORIMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate on what basis his statement was made that it would cost the Exchequer £1,000,000 per annum to allow a rebate of one-half of the Excise Duty at present charged on spirit used in the manufacture of perfumery articles; and whether he is aware that the customs and excise authorities have stated that they have no figures upon which they can estimate the amount of such loss?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): No precise official statistics are available, because the spirit used is duty-paid and no longer under Revenue supervision. The figure
    2740
    given by me was the result of Departmental inquiries into the use of spirit in perfumery and the closely allied trade of essences.

    EXCHEQUER GRANTS (MESTON COMMITTEE REPORT).
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to announce the date of publication of the Report of the Meston Committee on Exchequer Grants?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I learn that the chairman of the Committee hopes to submit a Report before Parliament re-assembles in October.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: Was not the last reply on this question that the Report would be submitted before we adjourned in the present Session?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand that the last reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman was to the effect that I hoped that before the House rose for the Recess the Report would be available. I have not been able to get it. The hon. Member will understand that the members of this Committee act quite voluntarily, and I cannot tell them to send me in a Report by a definite date. The last report which I had from the chairman was that he was drafting the Report and that he hoped to be in a position to present it before the Autumn Session.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee held its last meeting some 18 months ago, and since then there has been ample time to report?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot help being aware of that fact, because it has been stated so very often by the hon. Member, but I can add nothing to what I have said. Two General Elections have attenuated the membership of that Committee very considerably, but I hope that the Report of the chairman will be received before the House reassembles.

  RUSSIA.

    SOVIET DELEGATION (EXPENSES).
    Sir J. MARRIOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any part

    2741
    of the expenses or cost of the entertainment of the Soviet delegation to this country has fallen upon the Exchequer; and, if so, what has, up to date, been the charge upon public funds under either or both of these heads?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am unable to give any more recent figures than those contained in the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on 14th July.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: Does that answer the first part of my question?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I can send the hon. Member a copy of the reply of the Prime Minister. It was to the effect that at that time charges to the extent of £330 had fallen upon the Exchequer, and that this expense was made up of the salaries of two temporary clerks, and of an interpreter and a reporter.

    TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the advisory committee, appointed under the Trade Facilities Act, have reached any decisions with regard to the proposals placed before them by the Russian Government which, it is claimed, would involve placing of orders in this country for manufactured goods?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I regret that I cannot add anything to the answer I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness on the 7th July last.
    Captain BERKELEY: Is it correct, as stated in the Press to-day, that the trade negotiations between this country and Russia have broken down?
    Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. and gallant Friend had better await to-day's Debate.

    PRE-WAR SECURITIES.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement in this morning's Press that His Majesty's Government contemplated handing over to the Soviet Administration in Russia a sum of £10,000,000 now lying in this country to the credit of the former Tsarist Government; and whether, if His Majesty's Government has so decided, the Law Officers of the Crown approve of the legality of the transfer of this amount
    2742
    of pre-War Russian securities to the Bolshevists; and what guarantees are being given by the Bolshevist delegation in relation to Communist propaganda in British Dominions and Dependencies, following upon the receipt of this considerable sum of money?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): I must ask the hon. Member to await the full statement on the proceedings of the Anglo-Soviet Conference, which will be made to-morrow.
    Mr. HANNON: Will that include a statement about this £10,000,000 of pre-War securities belonging to the Tsarist Government in this country, and as to whether or not His Majesty's Government propose to hand it over to the Bolshevists?
    Mr. PONSONBY: It will be a full statement.

  ARAPUNI POWER SCHEME.
  Mr. REMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury is assisting the New Zealand Government in the development of the Arapuni power scheme; whether he is aware that, under the contract placed with a firm in this country, a foreign sub-contractor will benefit to the extent of £200,000 worth of electrical equipment which might have been placed in this country; and whether he will take steps to ensure that British credit shall not be used to the advantage of foreign manufacturers at the expense of British firms?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand that the Government of New Zealand have been considering an application for a grant under Section 2 of the Trade Facilities Act, 1924, in connection with this scheme, but no application has yet been received by His Majesty's Government. Grants under that section can be made only in respect of expenditure in this country, and before making them the Treasury must be satisfied, inter alia, that the proceeds of the loan are to be applied in a manner calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom.

  GRETNA (SALE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY).
  Mr. MIDDLETONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the ether factory at Gretna,

  2743
  owned by the Government, has been disposed of for less than £20,000; whether he will state the amount of the highest bid for this property at the recent sale in Carlisle; the total amount spent by the Government on the factory; and whether he is aware of the keen disappointment felt in the Gretna and Carlisle districts at the sale of the factory?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on the 29th and 31st July to my hon. Friends the Members for Springburn and Govan. The highest bid at the recent auction was £18,000.
  Mr. MIDDLETONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the greater part of the land used for the Government factories in the Gretna district has been reacquired by the company or persons who sold it to the Government; whether he will state the price at which the land in question was purchased by the Government, and the price at which it has been resold to the present owners; and whether he will state the reserve price placed on the property by the Government?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The statement in the first part of the question is not correct, the greater portion of the undamaged land at Gretna, amounting in all to about 4,600 acres, having, prior to the recent auction sale, been sold to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the land settlement scheme, and, so far as can be ascertained without elaborate search, there has only been one case of the kind described. In that instance the Government originally purchased 1,510 acres for £53,000—part of this price representing an allowance for severance, etc. Out of this total 416 acres were, before the auction, sold back to the firm in question, because they were the tenants, for a sum of £15,000. One thousand and eight acres were put up to auction at a reserve price of £11,850 and sold for £13,600. Out of these 1,008 acres, 908 were very much damaged and cut up by buildings, railways, roads, excavations, etc. On the two transactions, therefore, 1,424 acres in all, of which 908 were damaged, were sold at a price of £28,600.
  Mr. MIDDLETON: Can we have an assurance that the Government will not
  2744
  part with any more land or buildings at Gretna unless by explicit direction of the Government itself?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The Government have decided that no further sales shall take place until an opportunity is given for a thorough investigation as to whether it is possible to use any property for Government schemes.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Would my right hon. Friend say whether the whole of the sales are in the Scottish part of Gretna or in the Cumberland part?
  Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have made assiduous efforts since they came into power to dispose of Government property to private buyers, notably in the case of Sheerness? Is it the policy of the Government to dispose of Government property to private firms?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: As far as I am aware, the whole of the property sold at Gretna is on the Scottish side of the border. In regard to the second question, the Government, in whatever decision they take, are always actuated by the desire and the determination to do what is best for the public interest.
  Mr. MAXTON: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavour to see that for any land purchased by municipal authorities the purchase price to be paid is universally £13 per acre, which is what was received by the Government in this sale?

  TRADE FACILITIES ACT (GUARANTEES).
  Mr. FRANKLINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the small number of loans under £10,000 that are guaranteed under tire Trade Facilities Act, he will consider the appointing of a committee to examine the whole question, with a view to making the guarantees under this Act available for the smaller traders?
  Mr. GRAHAM: As I have already informed my hon. Friend in Debate, there is no discrimination whatever against the smaller trader, and I fear I cannot accept his suggestion as to the appointment of a committee.

  AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (ADVANCES TO FARMERS).
  Major McLEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many advances to farmers have been applied for under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, and the aggregate amount so applied for;
  (2) whether any advances to farmers have been approved under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923; and, if so, will he state the number and the aggregate amount of such advances approved, and the number and the aggregate amount of such advances actually made?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I will answer these questions together. The number of inquiries has been 1,297. In many cases no definite sum was applied for, so it is impossible to give the aggregate sum covered by these inquiries. 633 loans have been granted, to the aggregate amount of £2,434,316. Of these, 186 have been actually advanced to date to the amount of £663,902.
  Major McLEAN: Can the Financial Secretary tell us whether the applications approved, in respect of which no grants have yet been made, are entirely effective applications, or whether they include applications that have been withdrawn by the applicants or rejected by the Public Works Loan Board on the ground that the applicant cannot produce a 40 years' title?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Obviously to answer that question an analysis of the applications would be necessary. I will see whether the information can be given.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY PASSES).
  Mr. STRANGERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give the cost to the State of free railway travelling for Members of Parliament between Parliament and their constituencies up to 1st August, 1924; and whether the Treasury can make arrangements with the railway companies which will result in greater saving to the State?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The accounts covering the period referred to have not yet been received from the railway companies. If the hon. Member will repeat
  2746
  his question after the Recess, I hope to be in a position to give him the information for which he asks.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this system was introduced the London Members have been worsted?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not understand how that is so.
  Mr. THORNE: Simply because the Inland Revenue Department refuse to allow us travelling expenses in connection with Income Tax.
  Lord HUNTINGFIELD: Is it not a fact that the Socialist Members are clamouring for free passes over the whole of the railways of England?
  Major HORE-BELISHA: Is it still the fact that no single Member of Parliament has signified his intention not to use these passes?

  TOBACCO (SALE LICENCES).
  Mr. GROVESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the 1825 Act dealing with the manufacture and sale of tobacco and cigars imposes a condition upon licensees that the name of the trader must be exhibited over the main entrance of the premises at which such goods are sold; whether his attention has been called to the increasing practice of disregarding the terms of the Act, inasmuch as many persons holding licences do not display their names as provided by the Act; and whether in future issues of licences instructions will be plainly given that the conditions must be complied with?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I am not aware that the requirements of the law are not being met by traders to whom the provisions of the Act referred to by my hon. Friend are applicable, but if he will furnish me with any information on the subject of which he may be in possession I will cause inquiries to be made. I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt the suggestion made in the concluding part of my hon. Friend's question, as I am advised that the mere taking out of a tobacco dealer's licence does not necessarily carry with it the obligation to exhibit a signboard.

  JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES (PRISON VISITS).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any record has been kept of the number of visits paid in recent years to prisons by His Majesty's Judges and by magistrates other than visiting magistrates?
  Mr. DAVIES: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. STRANGER: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it desirable that Judges and magistrates should visit prisons in order to administer justice properly? Will he take steps to invite Judges and magistrates to visit a prison?
  Mr. HEALY: How many prisoners have been dealt with in the internment camp at Larne? What arrangements have been made with regard to visits there?
  Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many visits have been paid to prison by members of the Labour party in capacities other than those of visitors?
  Mr. HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether steps have been, or will be, taken to invite all magistrates actually undertaking duties upon the Bench to visit a prison within an early date of their first undertaking these duties?
  Mr. DAVIES: My right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that there is any need to remind magistrates of their right to visit any prison to which their Bench may commit prisoners. Magistrates are not appointed by my right hon. Friend, but he will consider, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, whether it would be feasible to invite newly-appointed magistrates to visit a prison.
  Mr. HARVEY: I am much obliged for that answer. May I ask the hon. Member whether he is aware that sometimes magistrates sit for 20 years on the Bench without ever visiting a prison?
  Major HORE-BELISHA: Are not the only occasions on which they do visit prisons when they are conscientious objectors, when they are immediately removed from their job? [Interruption.]
  Mr. FERGUSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is any hon. Member entitled—[Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has a point of Order to raise, would he please address the Chair?
  Mr. FERGUSON: I was asking whether the word "swine" was permissible?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has a point of Order to raise, will he please not swing his arms across the House, but address me.
  Mr. FERGUSON: I heard the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) describe us as swine.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite out of Order for the hon. Member to point across the House.
  Mr. FERGUSON: Is it in order for any hon. Member of this House to use the word "swine" to another hon. Member? It is a gutter-snipe sort of expression.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly it is grossly disorderly to use such a word. So, also, is the phrase used by the hon. Member.
  Mr. FERGUSON: I do not like these corner boys.

  INDIA (IMPERIAL CIVIL OFFICERS' PENSIONS).
  Captain BENNasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can furnish a list of Imperial civil officers appointed between the years 1896 and 1913 to permanent pensionable appointments who, being on medical leave at the date of the introduction of the proportionate pension scheme, 7th November, 1921, on account of disabilities incurred on military service, or who would still have been on leave on that date according to the ordinary Civil Service leave Regulations but for premature medical retirement for that reason, have been prematurely retired under the old scale?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): One of the conditions precedent to an officer's eligibility for the proportionate pension scheme to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is that he is physically fit to continue to serve at the date when he is permitted to retire on proportionate

  2749
  pension. As there is no intention of waiving this condition, I am afraid I cannot undertake to furnish the statement asked for, the preparation of which would involve the expenditure of much time and labour.

  POOR LAW (NON-RESIDENT RELIEF).
  Sir J. MARRIOTTasked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations as to the refusal of certain boards of guardians to authorise non-resident relief; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): My right hon. Friend has received representations of the nature referred to. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 17th July last in answer to a similar question by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards).

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EMPLOYES (TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the West Ham Board of Guardians and the Walthamstow Urban District Council in making membership of a trade union a condition of employment; and whether he can state what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The action of these authorities to which reference is made appears to be within their legal powers, and my right hon. Friend does not see that he can usefully intervene in the matter.
  Lord E. PERCY: Will the Minister consider the introduction of legislation to prevent this gross form of oppression?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some local authorities have passed resolutions to the contrary effect and will never employ a trade unionist at all?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS (BLIND PERSONS).
  Mr. EGANasked the Minister of Health whether a blind person, who is a collector with no trade or profession and is eligible for old age pension, and has paid insurance contributions, will be allowed to recover the amount standing to his credit?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: There is no provision in the law for repayment of Health Insurance contributions in the circumstances stated.

  POOR LAW AUTHORITIES (LOAN DEBT).
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Health the indebtedness in the aggregate of all the Poor Law authorities of the country now and in 1913?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The outstanding loan debt of the Poor Law authorities in England and Wales in respect of Poor Law services amounted at the end of the financial year 1912–13 to £11,640,830. The corresponding amount at the end of the financial year 1922–23 (apart from £5,208,000 estimated to be remaining to be repaid in respect of temporary loans and overdrafts sanctioned under the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921) was £6,036,839.

  APPROVED SOCIETIES' LEVIES.
  Mr. VIANTasked the Minister of Health (1) if he is aware that when a levy is imposed by an approved society on account of a deficiency in its administrative fund, any member failing to pay the same, the amount of the levy is deducted from each and every week's sickness pay in the following year, so that a member failing to pay a levy of 2s. would have £2 12s. deducted in the event of his claiming 26 weeks' sickness benefit in the following year; and, if so, whether these deductions have received his sanction;
  (2) whether the whole amount deducted from the benefit of a member of an approved society is credited to the administrative fund or only the amount of the unpaid levy?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The National Health Insurance Act, 1918, provides for a penalty by way of reduced benefits being imposed on members of a society who fail to pay a levy within the proper time. The penalty under the Regulations is a reduction in the rate of sickness or disablement benefit payable during the next benefit year, the reduction in the weekly rate of sickness benefit being 6d. for each 6d. or part of 6d. comprised in the amount of the levy. Where the produce of the levy is less than the deficiency in the administration account, the amount transferred from the benefit fund to that account is the additional sum required to extinguish the deficiency.

  UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, BRISTOL AREA.
  Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that complaints are made as to the way in which relief work is distributed in the Bristol area; and whether he will supply a statement showing the number of men placed on work at the Avonmouth Dock extension and their distribution among the Employment Exchanges?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I am unaware of any particular complaints, but if the hon. Member will give me further information I will have inquiry made. I am informed that the following numbers of men have been placed on the Avonmouth Dock extension scheme by the Exchanges mentioned with the advice of the Bristol Local Employment Committee:

  Bristol

  91

  Avonmouth

  105

  Eastville

  14

  Kingswood

  3

  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

    ELECTRICAL TRADE.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Labour whether steps are to be taken on loth August to bring about a strike in the electrical trade; and what action he is taking in the matter?
    Miss BONDFIELD: A meeting of the Joint Industrial Council for the Electricity
    2752
    Supply Industry has been fixed for 15th August, at which certain questions in dispute will be considered. No strike notices have been issued. We are keeping in touch with the position.

    BILSTON STEEL WORKS.
    Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further information with regard to the trade dispute at Messrs. Alfred Hickman's steel works at Bilston: and will he take steps to sea that those men of the Iron and Steel Trade Confederation who have been thrown out of work as the result of action taken by another trade union draw their unemployment pay at once?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have no further information in regard to the dispute in question. Appeals against the disallowance of benefit up to date of the operation of the Act recently passed are to be heard by the Court of Referees to-morrow. Whatever the decision on the claims prior to 1st August, all claims will be reviewed by the insurance officer as from that date in the light of the provisions of the Act recently passed. I should mention that the decision in cases of this kind does not rest with the Minister.

  MEXICO (MURDER OF MRS. EVANS).
  Mr. HANNONasked the Prime Minister whether he has received further information from the American Charge d'Affaires in Mexico City relative to the murder of Mrs. Evans; whether he has conveyed to the Mexican Administration through the American Charge d'Affaires an expression of the indignation and abhorrence of the people of the United Kingdom at the commission of this atrocious crime; and whether he proposes to take steps immediately to secure adequate compensation for the loss of this gallant lady's life to her next-of-kin and to secure the future safety of Mrs. Evans' estate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The United States Embassy at Mexico City has brought the murder of Mrs. Evans to the notice of the Mexican Government and requested immediate investigation with a view to the apprehension and punishment of the murderers, and the Mexican

  2753
  Government has replied that energetic measures are being taken to expedite investigation and action for the apprehension of Mrs. Evans' assailants. The United States Embassy suggested to the Mexican Government that it would be well to place a guard at Mrs. Evans' ranch to protect her house and its contents. The British Consul-General at Mexico City informs me that Captain Hollocombe, an official of the British Legation, who has been sent to the ranch to investigate, reports that the motive of the crime was not robbery; that the Mexican Government are acting energetically and have made a number of arrests and that he is obtaining all facilities. In reply to the second part of the question, I have informed His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington that the Mexican Government should be made to realise their responsibility for this tragic development. In reply to the last part of the Question, a claim will certainly be made for suitable compensation in due course. I understand that the newspapers have some further news, but I have no official information beyond that which I have given.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Prime Minister whether he will take the necessary steps to secure the appointment of a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons or, alternatively, the appointment of a Select Committee of this House, to consider the question of the Channel Tunnel, with a view to ascertaining whether the objections recently urged against the project on the ground of naval, military and aircraft defence have undergone material modification in support of the early construction of the proposed submarine railway.
  Mr. STEPHEN: May I ask, is there any question of urgency with regard to this matter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understood there was some statement to be made.
  Mr. CLYNES: The Prime Minister indicated on 7th July, in reply to a supplementary question addressed to him by the right hon. Member, that if there was a general desire for such a Com-
  2754
  mittee, he would be prepared to consider the suggestion. So far, no approaches have been made in this sense, and I have yet to learn whether those interested in this problem have the support of any considerable section of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: Will the Deputy-Leader of the House tell us what business he proposes to take to-day?
Mr. CLYNES: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Second Reading. At 8.15, Private Business, the Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill. Then Orders Nos. 2 to 5 inclusive, as on the Order Paper, namely, National Health Insurance Bill, Committee; Arbitration Clauses (Protocol) Bill, Report; China Indemnity (Application) Bill, Report; and Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill, Second Reading. These Orders were announced as the business for last night, when I made an announcement on business last Friday.
I should like further to add that on Wednesday we shall take the Housing Bill, Lords Amendments; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Third Reading—when the subjects, as we understand, will be Russia and tuberculosis; it is the same party that has given notice of the two subjects—and the Agricultural Wages Bill, Lords Amendments.
On Thursday, the Motion for Adjournment will be taken, when a statement will be made on Ireland.
Mr. HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether disciplinary action has been or will be taken, with a view to preventing the lamentable incident which occurred at 2 o'clock this morning?
Mr. CLYNES: If an effort were made, it would have to apply to a large number to be effective.
Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Second Reading of the Irish Free State Land Purchase (Loan Guarantee) Bill this week?
Mr. CLYNES: Not until after the Recess.
Major COLFOX: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of keeping a House to-night, or is he going to let it lapse again?
Mr. MAXTON: I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if there is any precedent in this House for the Chairman of Ways and Means taking 2¾ hours, as he did yesterday evening, and 2¾ hours, as he proposes to do again this evening, out of this time, which is one of the most valuable times that private Members have in this House, for the sake of pushing through two Private Bills? I want you, Sir, to inform us whether there has been any precedent for this being done at the close of any other Session.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Chairman of Ways and Means is charged by the House with the control of the Private Business of the House. In that, he has certain duties to perform, in which he is entirely independent. The matter rests wholly in his discretion, and it is not a matter of which the Speaker has any knowledge, or over which he has any control.
Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that it is due to their own fault, because Members on this side have been blocking the Bills day after day?
Mr. MAXTON: The blocking of Private Bills of this nature is one of the rights of private Members. On that ruling, I would assume that the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his conduct in that position, is guided, as you are, Mr. Speaker, in a great many eases, by the precedents that have been established in this House, and the point that I am putting before you is as to whether there is any precedent for this time being taken by the Chairman of Ways and Means, in the closing days of the Session, that are devoted to the Appropriation Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot answer that question. I only know that, just, before the Recess, it has frequently been necessary to press on the Private Business. But, as I have said, the matter is wholly outside my control, and the Chairman is acting in pursuance of the duties placed upon him by the House.
Ordered, That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of
2756
the Standing Order (Sittings of the House.—[Mr. Clynes.]
Ordered, That the Adjourned Debate an the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill be resumed at this day's Sitting.—[Mr. Clynes.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Arthur Wellesley Dean, esquire, County of Holland with Boston.
CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL,
"to provide for the further relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects," presented by Mr. BLUNDELL; supported by Mr. Hope, Mr. Edward Wood, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Nall, Mr. Masterman, Major Dudgeon, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Charleton; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 3rd November, and to be printed. [Bill 247.]

DEMOLITION OF DWELLING HOUSES (PROHIBITION).
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the demolition of dwelling-houses, and for other purposes connected therewith."
The provisions which are incorporated in this Bill were already enacted by> Section 6 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1979, but most of the Sections of that Act were passed for only two years, with the result that the provisions which are the subject of this Bill came to an end about 1921. It has come to the notice of the House, in the course of the discussion of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill and various other Bills dealing with evictions and tenancies of residential property, that one of the incentives to the owners of property to secure vacant possession of houses is, that indirectly they may be let for commercial purposes or demolished so that factories or business premises may be erected on the sites. This evil is particularly prevalent in the inner boroughs of London, but it is also prevalent to some extent in other of the great industrial centres of Great Britain. Therefore, I

2757
am anxious that the provisions of Section 6 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, shall be re-enacted, in order that a tenant of such property may have the necessary safeguard against houses being utilised for that purpose, and I feel that the House will agree that, at this time of serious shortage in houses for residential purposes, it is nothing short of a tragedy that some of them should be changed from use for residential purposes to use for commercial purposes, or should be demolished for a similar reason.
I desire to give to the House certain figures which are in my possession with regard to some of the Metropolitan boroughs. There have been in recent years, in Islington, 21 houses demolished in order that they might be used for factory purposes, and, also in the borough of Islington, 44 houses have been converted from residential use to commercial use. In the borough of Hackney, the figures are even more alarming in this particular respect. There are, in that borough, 874 premises used as workshops, but excluding altogether workshops where mechanical power is used, which come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. Of these 874 premises, no less than 414 were built for use as private houses, but are now in use in whole or in part as workshops. During the year 1923 no less than 23 premises were converted from use as dwelling-houses to commercial purposes. It will therefore be seen that the evil is very real so far as London is concerned, and particularly in the inner boroughs. It has the effect of driving the residential population out from the central parts of London while commercialising and industrialising the inner boroughs, and this must have the effect of producing further congestion on the transit system and increasing the time that it takes for people to get to their places of employment.
The Bill provides that houses cannot be demolished without the consent of the local authority, and if they are in a fit sanitary state, that they cannot be used for purposes other than residential without the consent of the local authority. It is provided that the owner may appeal to the Minister of Health on the ground that the premises are not capable, with-
2758
out reconstruction, of being put in a fit sanitary state for human habitation, and there is provision for a Standing Committee of Appeal. Property which is going to be demolished or is limited in user in pursuance of an Act of Parliament is exempted, and there are the usual provisions as to definitions, application to Scotland, and so on. I feel that this Bill will be of value to many of the inner boroughs of London where this evil is prevalent, and I hope that the House will give consent for it to be introduced.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Gillett, Mr. Gibbins, Mr. Montague, and Mr. Windsor.

DEMOLITION OF DWELLING HOUSES (PROHIBITION).
  DEMOLITION OF DWELLING-HOUSES (PROHIBITION) BILL,
  "to prohibit the demolition of dwelling-houses, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 246.]

COMPANIES LAW AMENDMENT.
Mr. REMER: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give powers to the President of the Board of Trade to refuse the use of the word 'British' by Limited Liability Companies and to impose limitations upon its use."
The use of the word "British" by limited liability companies has become a real scandal. It has been used by public companies for the purpose of cloaking their foreign nationality and has been abused in many other directions. This matter has come to a head recently by the registration in London of a company which is known as British Progress Limited. British Progress Limited has three directors. The first director who owns eight-ninths of the share capital in the company is of the name—and for the purposes of greater accuracy I propose to spell it—of Samuel Zwick. I understand that he is an unnaturalised Russian. The second director is of the name of Isaac Arone, a naturalised British subject born in Lithuania, and the third director is named Samuel Kalmanson, a naturalised United States citizen, born in Russia. Out of the shares of this company eight-ninths

2759
are held by the first director, and the other two directors hold all the rest. The company was formed for the purpose of dealing in aeroplanes. The use of the name "British" by such a company—and it is a growing practice for people of that kind to use the name "British"—is a scandal and should therefore be dealt with by legislation. The President of the Board of Trade, in reply to a question which I put to him recently, said that he had no powers under the existing Companies Act, but that, when the Companies Act came up again for revision, he would give consideration to Amendments of the law. This matter is too urgent to wait that lengthy period, and, therefore, I am introducing a Bill for the purpose of amending the present law. The Bill provides that in the case of a company which has the word "British" as part of its trading name, all the directors shall be of British nationality. The second Clause provides that the memorandum or articles of association shall be so worded that 51 per cent. of the shareholding of the company shall always be of British nationality—
Captain BERKELEY: British born or naturalised British subjects?
Mr. REMER:—or naturalised British subjects. It is a very simple Bill, and is for the purpose of dealing with what is a very serious scandal.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Remer, Mr. Sandeman, Mr. Hall Caine, and Mr. Hannon.

COMPANIES LAW AMENDMENT.
  COMPANIES LAW AMENDMENT BILL,
  "to give powers to the President of the Board of Trade to refuse the use of the word British by limited liability companies and to impose limitations upon its use," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 13th August, and to be printed. [Bill 249.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
Mr. COOPER RAWSON: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the prevention of vexatious candidatures for local government authorities."
2760
I would not now have intruded on the time of the House but for representations made to me by a local authority in my constituency. My Bill is one to deal with vexatious candidatures for local government authorities. It is a very simple Bill, and its object is to extend to county council, borough council, and other local authority elections the same provision as exists at the present time with regard to Parliamentary elections. It provides that for a county council election a candidate shall deposit a sum of £20, and for an election for a local authority a sum of £10, but only in a district where the population exceeds 20,000 people. If the candidate withdraw s in pursuance of the Ballot Act of 1872, or if before the poll commences he dies and thus has a walk over for another place, his deposit is returned to him—[Laughter.]—I have not finished yet—or to his legal personal representative. If, on the other hand, he goes through the election, and he fails to poll more than one-eighth of the total number of votes, then he forfeits his deposit, as is the case in Parliamentary elections.
I would like to give one or two illustrations of how hardly the present system bears upon people at the present time. For instance, an undertaker in the borough of Holborn had been away for a period of five years and returned on the eve of a by-election for the board of guardians for which he got nominated. He went to the Town Clerk and got a free nomination paper, and that was all he did in the election. A friend said to him, "Why are you standing? You have not an earthly chance." "I know that perfectly well," he replied, "but I have been away for five years, and have come back again. My name now will appear on the church door, with my occupation, and will go round among the electors, and I shall get a very expensive advertisement free of cost." That was all very well, and it showed a very keen business capacity on the part of the undertaker, but it involved a cost of about £20 on his opponent and a cast of £30 on the unhappy ratepayers. In another case, in St. George's, there were six candidates for six vacancies, and at the last minute one man came along and forced a contest. He polled only 64 votes as against over 1,000 for each of the other six candidates. Ten days ago, in Shoreham, in a rural

2761
election, the man at the top polled 31 times as many votes as the man at the bottom of the poll.
I think those illustrations are sufficient to prove that a hardship falls not only on the candidate but upon the ratepayers, because, unlike Parliamentary elections, the cost of Borough and County Council elections falls not only upon the candidates but also upon the ratepayers. There is no limit to the expenses of Metropolitan Borough Council candidates, but in the case of the London County Council the average expense of a candidate amounts, roughly, to £200, and the expense to the ratepayers to a little over £310, and in the ease of Borough Council elections in London the average cost to the ratepayers is £50. I think I have given sufficient figures to show that this is a burden which ought not to he imposed upon the ratepayers by irresponsible and over-optimistic candidates who can go all over the country and force an election upon anybody without spending 1d. themselves and give their opponents a lot of trouble and expense. The Bill proposes to limit its activities to districts where the electoral area amounts to 20,000 and over, so that there is nothing in it to prevent the small man in a small place from standing as he does at the present time. It is an entirely non-party Measure. It is not aimed at any party, because the same thing might happen to any of us to-morrow. Therefore, I hope that the House in its kindness will give the Bill a First Reading.
Mr. VIANT rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Member rise to oppose the Bill?
Mr. VIANT: I do. I have listened very attentively to all that the hon. Member had to say in placing the Bill before the House, but on this side of the House we have had considerable trouble in the past in finding candidates to contest local elections, and from our point of view—and I think I speak for the majority on our side of the House—the Bill, if it were passed, would accentuate the difficulty with which we are already confronted. If the plea advanced be good so far as the large areas are concerned, the same principle could be well applied to the smaller areas. Many of us on this side of the House have contested local elections, and we have had considerable difficulty in finding even among a number of 100 £20. I feel that we ought to do nothing to discourage the best men and women we can get to come forward to serve on local authorities. We want the best. We want those who are imbued with the best possible civic spirit, and it frequently happens that in many areas we have had the poorest of our members to serve on boards of guardians and local governing authorities. From that point of view alone I would appeal to the Members of this House to refuse to give this Bill a First Reading, because I am convinced that, if they do so, they will be taking a step prejudicial to the best interests of the country from the standpoint of local government.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the prevention of vexatious candidatures for local government authorities."
The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 160.

Division No. 192.]

AYES.

[4.16 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Gates, Percy

Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Alstead, R.

Chapman, Sir S.

Gilbert, James Daniel

Atholl, Duchess of

Clayton, G. C.

Gorman, William

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Cope, Major William

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Barclay, R. Noton

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Gretton, Colonel John

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Dodds, S. R.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Becker, Harry

Dunn, J. Freeman

Harland, A.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Harris, John (Hackney, North)

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

Eyres-Monsell, Corn. Rt. Hon, B. M.

Harris, Percy A.

Berkeley, Captain Reginald

Falconer, J.

Harvey,C. M. B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

Bourne, Robert Croft

Ferguson, H.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Finney, V. H.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Briscoe, Captain Richard George

Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Franklin, L. B.

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

Bullock, Captain M.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Huntingfield, Lord

Moles, Thomas

Somerville, Danlel (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Murrell, Frank

Starmer, Sir Charles

Kay, Sir R. Newbald

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)

Keens, T.

Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Sutcliffe, T.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Perking, Colonel E. K.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Lamb, J. Q.

Pilkington, R. R.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Laverack, F. J.

Raffety, F. W.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Linfield, F. C.

Raine, W.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Rankin, James S.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Lumley, L. R.

Rathbone, Hugh H.

Vivian, H.

Lyle, Sir Leonard

Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

Wells, S. R.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Winfrey, Sir Richard

M'Connell, Thomas E.

Remer, J. R.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Rentoul, G. S.

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

McLean, Major A.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Wragg, Herbert

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Robertson, T. A.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Meller, R. J.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Sir Kingsley Wood and Mr. Cooper Rawson.

Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

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

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Healy, Cahir

Pringle, W. M R.

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

Hillary, A. E.

Raynes, W. R.

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

Hirst, G. H.

Rea, W. Russell

Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

Hobhouse, A. L.

Richards, R.

Ammon, Charles George

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Aske, Sir Robert William

Hoffman, P. C.

Robertson, J, (Lanark, Bothwell)

Attlee, Major Clement R.

Hodge, James Myles

Rose, Frank H.

Baker, Walter

Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

Royle, C.

Barnes, A.

Hudson, J. H.

Scrymgeour, E.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Isaacs, G. A.

Scurr, John

Bondfield, Margaret

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Sexton, James

Bonwick, A.

Jewson, Dorothea

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

Sherwood, George Henry

Broad, F. A.

Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bromfield, William

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

Simpson, J. Hope

Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Smith, T. (Pontefract)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Buchanan, G.

Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

Snell, Harry

Cape, Thomas

Kenyon, Barnet

Spence, R.

Charleton, H. C.

Lansbury, George

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

Church, Major A. G.

Law, A.

Spero, Dr. G. E.

Clarke, A.

Lawrence, Susan (East Ham. North)

Stamford, T. W.

Close, W. S.

Lawson, John James

Stephen, Campbell

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Leach, W.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Comyns-Carr, A. S.

Lee, F.

Stranger,Innes Harold

Cove, W. G.

Lessing, E.

Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Lunn, William

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

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Dickson, T.

Macfadyen, E.

Thurtle, E.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Mackinder, W.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Duncan, C.

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

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Steven

Dunnico, H.

Manse), Sir Courtenay

Warne, G. H.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

March, S.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Foot, Isaac

Marley, James

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

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Masterman, At. Hon. C. F. G.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

Maxton, James

Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

Gibbins, Joseph

Middleton, G.

Welsh, J. C.

Gillett, George M.

Mills, J. E.

Westwood, J.

Gosling, Harry

Montague, Frederick

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

Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

Morel, E. D.

Whiteley, W.

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Morris, R. H.

Wignall, James

Greenall, T.

Mosley, Oswald

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

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Muir, John W.

Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Groves, T.

Nichol, Robert

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

Nixon, H.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Oliver, George Harold

Windsor, Walter

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Owen, Major G.

Wintringham, Margaret

Harbison, Thomas James S.

Paling, W.

Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

Hartshorn, Rt. Han. Vernon

Palmer, E. T.

Wright, W.

Hastings, Sir Patrick

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

Perry, S. F.

Haycock, A. W.

Phillipps, Vivian

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hayes, John Henry

Potts, John S.

Mr. Charles Dukes and Mr. Viant.

Bill read a Second time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Amendment to—
Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Hastings Corporation Bill [Lords].
Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords].
Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Local Authorities Loans (Scotland) Bill.
Midlothian (Calder District) Water Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill.
Tynemounth Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to prevent the teaching of seditious and blasphemous doctrines and methods to children; and for other purposes connected therewith." [Seditious and Blasphemous Teaching to Children Bill [Lords].
London Traffic Bill,—That they insist upon one of their Amendments with which the Commons have disagreed, for which insistence they assign a Reason; they agree with the Amendments made by the Commons to one other of their Amendments; and they do not insist upon certain other of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Lords Reason for insisting on one of their Amendments to which this House hath disagreed to he considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]
HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE) BILL,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Second Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th August] "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Question again proposed.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    EX-RANKER OFFICERS.
    Mr. JOHN HARRIS: It will be remembered that in the early hours of this morning, on the adjournment of the Debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, the subject under discussion was the position of the ex-ranker officer. I think I can sum up the position as it was left at two o'clock this morning in half a dozen short sentences. The Debate had established to the satisfaction of all the parties in the House that, during the discussion on 13th March last, the language used by the Prime Minister had left a very definite impression that, after the Report had been made by the Committee upon the case of the ex-ranker officer, this House should decide the issue. On the strength of that understanding in this House, namely, that the House should decide, a considerable number of members voted with the Government at the timer Last night we pressed the Government to give to the House an opportunity of deciding upon the issue. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War met us in a very fair and friendly spirit, but there was a point beyond which he could not go. He undertook to convey to the Prime Minister this morning the clear consensus of opinion of the House on the matter. That did not meet the case of a good many of us, and therefore every effort was made to get the Government to go one step further and to provide the opportunity for which we asked. Every effort was made by telephone and, I believe, by personal message to find the, Deputy Leader of the House, or to get in touch with him. We were unsuccessful in that. I hope that since two o'clock this morning the Government, having had time to consider the situation, will now give us this opportunity, namely, that the House shall have the chance of deciding this issue.
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I am not going to enter into the merits of this question, but I would remind the House that numerous opportunities have arisen during the last few weeks for raising this issue and for securing a decision of the House had it been thought proper to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes. I think in fairness to the Government it should be stated that they are not the sole masters of the time of the House, and that the other two parties in it have had recurring opportunities for raising a question of this kind and reaching a decision. The Government, however, quite apart from the question whether it is a minority Government or a majority Government, should not set aside what apparently is a conviction on the part of hon. Members that the Prime Minister gave to the House a definite assurance that an opportunity should be given, not only to discuss but to decide on the Report which the Committee was to frame. I think it is true to say, however, that a far wider application has been given to the Prime Minister's statement on this question than was his intention when he spoke. At the same time, the Government are prepared to afford a suitable time in the early part of the Autumn Session in order that the House may not merely have an opportunity of discussing but of reaching a decision on the Report which has been issued. To that I would only add that it can be fairly said by those who read the Debate that, when the Prime Minister made the statement, what he had in mind was that when the Report was issued the Government would be in a position to reach a decision upon it. I agree that he used the word "House," and therefore the Government must accept the interpretation which has been given by hon. Members who have raised this question. I hope, therefore, as we give an assurance to afford time for a discussion on this question, that we may be able now to proceed to the consideration of other matters. I would only add, as to the precise form in which the matter may be presented to the House, that the Government have not had an opportunity of considering that matter, but my view is that it ought to be in a form which will enable the House to reach a definite decision.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can only indicate my assent. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very frank statement.

    2787
    I think I may thank him on behalf of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I am very glad to hear that it will be in such a form that we can reach a decision. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

    INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I rise to put a few questions to the Prime Minister—I understand he will be in the House in a moment or two—in regard to the very important statement which he made to the House yesterday on the work of the International Conference. Had the House been sitting in a week or fortnight's time I should myself have thought it more advisable to postpone the discussion until the Conference was completed. But I understand that the Motion for the Adjournment will be taken on Thursday and, therefore, there will be no further opportunity, I will not say for debate, but for elucidating the statement of the Prime Minister. We are therefore forced by that circumstance to have what might be regarded as a premature discussion. But I am sure that all Members of the House will bear in mind the fact that the. Conference is not complete and that no one will do anything which will embarrass the Prime Minister in the completion of what is a very difficult task, as I happen to know. However, I repeat, it is desirable, before we separate, that we should have a clear idea as to what the proposals, I will not say of the Government, but what the proposals of the Allies are. The French Parliament, I understand, has adjourned, and there will be a discussion upon the completed action of the Conference in the French Assembly and the French Senate. That is so, I believe: is it not?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald)indicated assent.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, that is it. Well, that is worth the Government's while to consider, because by the time we meet in October it will obviously be too late for Parliament to express any opinion. The Government must take action upon whatever decisions are arrived at at this Conference, and although the primary responsibility is the responsibility of the Government, the final responsibility for all these decisions must be the responsibility of Parliament, and I think it worth
    2788
    the Government's while considering, not that they should adjourn till a specific date, but that they should adopt the method which was pursued, I think, in 1920, when there were some difficulties in regard to Poland, and the Government of the day, in response to pressure from the Opposition, agreed to summon Parliament upon a notice by Mr. Speaker six days' after consultation between the Government and the leaders of the Opposition. I think it is worth their while considering whether that is not the course they ought to pursue.
    I can assure the Prime Minister that the few words I want to say will not be in the spirit of criticism, because I know too well how great are the difficulties of the task which he has in charge, and therefore I shall speak in the spirit of what I call reminiscent sympathy with him. I remember, when he was on the threshold of office at the beginning of this year, I told him that he must remember that he was not going to get his own way and that he had to reconcile his own ideas with the ideas of at least five other Prime Ministers' ideas of a totally different character, and that the best he could do was to achieve the most successful compromise and the most successful bargain. That did not mean that he could carry out his own ideas entirely. He very frankly said to the House yesterday that the statement which he made represented a bargain, that is, it will be a give-and-take arrangement. Well, I hope he will remember that that is equally true of the transactions of the past. No British Prime Minister at any of these Conferences has ever been successful in achieving exactly the arrangement of the Treaty which he would have wished. It has always been a question of give and take, a question of compromise. The best that you can achieve is to arrive at a compromise which will prevent a break-up among the Allies and carry you, at any rate, one step further towards peace.
    Listening to the statement of the Prime Minister, one's first impression was that it was a very elaborate and very complicated agreement. The recommendations of the Dawes Report itself are very elaborate, and the Reports of the Committees or Commissions evidently have superimposed upon the Dawes plan a number of complex adjuncts and safe-

    2789
    guards which will be very difficult in working. Any human machinery, however complicated or however clumsy it may be, if it is lubricated with goodwill will work well. It will depend entirely upon that. But at the same time, every complication which is introduced into machinery adds an additional chance of friction and of frustration. It is important, therefore, that, if possible, there should be nothing left to chance, and that no element of doubt which can be cleared up should be allowed to remain.
    I want to call attention to two or three things where I think there are very considerable elements of doubt still left. The statement of the Prime Minister was, if I may say so, very clear—and I am not complaining of any obscurity, it was clear as far as it went—but there were very grave gaps. The first was that he made no statement as to what agreement had been arrived at in regard to the evacuation of the Ruhr. That is a matter of first-class importance. It is the question which has clearly agitated the Germans more than any other, and I have no doubt it will be raised as soon as they enter into discussions. The Prime Minister's view, the view which I think was taken by almost everyone in this House—it was taken by the late Government; it was taken at the time by the Leader of the Opposition; it was taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and all those who followed him—is that the invasion of the Ruhr was an illegal act; it was a transgression of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles; it was an outrage on national rights. That, I understand, is still the Prime Minister's view. He went further yesterday and said that since he became better acquainted, through the medium of the Foreign Office, with the whole of the facts of the case, his impression with regard to that transaction has been confirmed. It is, therefore, very important that that should be cleared up. The Dawes Report has declined to express any opinion on the military question, but it does express an opinion with regard to civil evacuation and the economic evacuation of the Ruhr. But as M. Poincaré, when he entered into the Ruhr, made it clear that the soldiers went there merely to protect the civilians and to enable the civilians
    2790
    to carry out their economic functions, the moment you have an economic evacuation there is no further ground for the presence of those troops in the Ruhr; they are purely provocative; they are a source of irritation.
    In the absence of a statement, an authoritative statement, from, the Prime Minister, one has to fall back upon such reports as appear in the papers, and I saw something in the Press about the French and the Belgians intending to remain in the Ruhr for two years—that they intended to remain in the Ruhr until not merely was the agreement signed, but until there had been complete evidence of the bona fides of the German Government by the discharge of certain obligations under this new agreement, and that they meant to remain there two years. That is a very serious thing, and I cannot imagine His Majesty's Government not making it quite clear that that cannot possibly be the case.
    I want to press further a point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley put to the Prime Minister the last time we had a discussion on this subject, and my recollection is that the Prime Minister could not see his way then to answer it, but I think it is important. It is with regard to the evacuation of the Cologne area on the 1st January. Under the Treaty, the five years, I think, come to an end—I am speaking subject to correction—at the beginning of next year, the 10th January. That is really a very important point, because it is a guarantee of our good faith in the carrying out of the Treaty of Versailles. We cannot say to the Germans: "Whenever there is any obligation or burden imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, we mean to insist upon it, but whenever there is any relaxation, whenever there is anything which is favourable to you in the Treaty of Versailles, we cannot accept it. We will set it on one side. We will treat it as a scrap of paper." That is an impossible position. What makes this serious is the declaration made—I am not sure whether it was made by M. Herriot, but it was certainly made by his predecessor, and it has never been repudiated by him—that the five, 10 or 15 years of occupation have not yet started to run, because of the action of the Germans, until some date they choose to fix.

    2791
    That is really getting out of your Treaty obligations in a way which is not strictly honourable. Of course, it has a bearing on the occupation of the Ruhr. If the Cologne area is evacuated, then obviously the Ruhr cannot be occupied, because it is necessary that there should be Allied occupation of the Cologne area in order to sustain an occupation of the Ruhr. If that is in German occupation, it renders the military occupation of the Ruhr quite impracticable, certainly without grave risk. It is the test of our good faith. I have no doubt the Prime Minister has discussed this matter, and I think the House ought to know exactly what is the position, not only whether we are going to evacuate Cologne, but whether it is clear that no other Power will send their troops there, because, if they do, things would be very much worse, for there is no doubt at all that there is a very friendly feeling between our troops and the civilian population at Cologne.
    There have been no unpleasant incidents, and I have heard no complaints of the action of the troops. The spirit in which they have discharged their task is worthy of the highest traditions of the British Army, and they have won the confidence and the respect in that relation even of the German population, whom they were fighting a few years before. But if they are to leave and other troops enter into that area—which is exactly what happened in connection with the American occupation—that will introduce complications and also a very disagreeable element which I think might upset the whole of the work which the Prime Minister has accomplished. The danger of these military occupations we all foresaw. It was a compromise. The view I have put has been published in a document which I issued before the agreement was arrived at. I was never in favour of it, and I thought it was a very dangerous expedient. As the Prime Minister knows, all these things are a matter of compromise and of give and take.
    The danger is a growing one in one respect. There is no doubt it is easier to effect a settlement to-day than it, was four or five years ago, for the simple reason that the economic facts are better understood. There were people
    2792
    who thought that Germany could pay £15,000,000,000 or £20,000,000,000 sterling, and they were men who passed as first-rate financial experts. The economic facts are getting to be better known, and that is one advantage in settling now rather than a few years ago. There is another element which makes it very much more difficult, and it is that during the first few years after the signing of the Treaty we were dealing with a prostrate, broken Germany. Its spirit was broken, there was no fight left in it, and the population who fought with very great courage, as everyone knows, during the preceding years were left without a struggle in them. The result was that incidents and episodes which would have provoked a very disagreeable situation in a high-spirited community were allowed to pass almost without protest. That is passing away, and it is bound to pass away with any high-spirited race. There is a new generation coming into existence. There is undoubtedly a new spirit. The growth of nationalism in Germany is a very formidable fact. Therefore military occupation will become a greater and greater danger as the years go by, especially military occupation by one race of the territory of another where there is an old racial feud which has lasted for unknown centuries and which has provoked countless wars.
    Deep down there is a very fierce feeling, and it is no use not recognising that fact. Under conditions of that kind, an indiscretion either on the part of the civilian population or on the part of an officer of the military force that is occupying that area may provoke something which may completely destroy all the work of pacification which has been accomplished after weeks of consideration by any and every conference. It is most important that the area of the military occupation should be limited as soon as Treaty conditions permit. Therefore I urge the Prime Minister to let us know what is the position of the Government, first of all, with regard to the military evacuation of the Ruhr; and, secondly, what is their position in connection with the evacuation of the Cologne area, which is the first area for evacuation prescribed in the Treaty of Versailles? Upon that question I press for an answer, if we can possibly get it.
    There is another question, and that is with regard to default, and it raises a very crucial issue. There is a chain of com

    2793
    mittees set up. It is probably the best expedient under the very difficult conditions under which M. Herriot acts, and one must always recognise that. It is probably the only way in which he could be got to assent to some things to which he has assented. But it is a very complicated set of committees, and they can only work with complete goodwill. I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question: The word "default" is the word which is used in the Report of the committees. I need hardly call his attention to the fact that that is a different word from what is used in the Versailles Treaty. The words in the Treaty are "wilful default." That is a very vital difference. I need hardly point out that, supposing a man says, "Well, I owe you £1,000 and I cannot pay," that is default. But supposing he cannot as a matter of fact pay, that is default but not wilful default. It is only wilful default when he not merely has not paid, but he could have paid and has not paid. Therefore, the issue to be decided is a very different one, and that is why the Versailles Treaty introduced the words "wilful default."
    It is very important from this point of view. The conditions of the War created a perfectly new financial situation, and it is one of which nations have never had any previous experience. The payment of huge sums of money in respect of something which does not produce any return to the nation that pays is the difference between a penalty and a loan, and it is a vital one. We were in receipt of about £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 from other countries—I am not sure whether it was £350,000,000—but it was a very substantial sum paid by other countries to us before the. War. That was invariably in respect of money which we had advanced to them which was productive, and which enabled them to raise more wheat, more cotton, and more corn, and, therefore, the very transaction itself helped those nations to pay us interest. But that is not the case here. This is a penalty running into thousands of millions. It is not an investment by us in Germany, which fructifies, and it is not something which helps Germany to pay.
    That is a new financial transaction in the history of nations. As far as continuous payment is concerned, in the case of the Franco-Prussian war, £200,000,000 sterling was offered, but that was one
    2794
    clean transaction, and it was not a continuous payment running over a whole generation. No one could tell, when this arose, how it would work. We consulted men whom everybody at that time said were about the, best experts in the City of London. We consulted Treasury experts; the French consulted experts, the Americans consulted experts, and the Belgians did the same. It is very remarkable that there was a difference of thousands of millions between the recommendations of one set of experts and another. There was no agreement. Why? They were dealing with a perfectly novel situation—the payment of huge sums of money across a frontier in respect of something which was not a fructifying liability or obligation. What happened? All we could get was a compromise and never a concurrence. Every agreement at any of these conferences represented a compromise. The French, naturally, took a very liberal view of the possibilities of Germany, and the Americans took a very much lower view. Our experts were somewhere in between. But you never had agreement.
    5.0 P.M.
    A compromise is very useful in politics, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and it is very necessary in a conference. A compromise always comes to grief with a fact, and the fact is the capacity of Germany to pay. We had figures which we agreed with Germany. A time came when Germany said, "We cannot pay it." We said, "But you agreed to pay it.'' Germany then said, "That does not alter the fact," Nor did it. What was the result? We had to enter into a, fresh discussion with Germany to try to ascertain what she was really capable of paying, and the Prime Minister will find exactly the same difficulty again. The Dawes Report is a compromise. It must not be assumed that it is a finality. I am sorry to put this point, but I am putting it from a fairly long experience. The mere fact that experts—I forget how many there were—they were very able men—arrived at a certain figure as to the capacity of Germany to pay does not make this a final transaction. It was clearly a compromise between French and American, British, Belgian and Italian experts, and, therefore, the question of default is a very important one. If you are going to decide default, it is only a

    2795
    question of fact. What is the fact? That Germany has not paid—that is all. In so far as the documents which are published are concerned, these committees which are to be set up have only to decide default. That is very easy to decide. I am taking the documents which appeared yesterday. I looked at the statement made by my right hon. Friend yesterday. He only used the words "bad faith" when he came to the question of transfer, that is, transfer with regard to raw material and payments in kind, but the words "bad faith" were never used by him when he came to the question of general default. I am only asking the question. If it be so, that is all right, but, on the documents as they appear, these committees have only to decide one thing, and that is default. If they come forward and report that Germany has not paid, that is undoubtedly a default.
    I want to know why the words of the Treaty, namely, "wilful default," were departed from? They were proposed in the Treaty—it is no secret—by the British Delegation. There were two very important provisions for which the British Delegation—and I am referring now to the Dominions as well as to the rest of us—were responsible. We fully realised that it was impossible, in 1919, to declare what Germany could pay. No living person could predict, because it was such a novel proposition. We, therefore, urged that sanctions should not operate against Germany unless she was guilty of wilful default, that that question should be tried on the facts at the time by the Reparation Commission, and that Germany should have the right to appeal, not once for all, but at any moment, to the Reparation Commission to decide the question of her capacity to pay. I want to know what is the position in that regard. Are these Committees to decide the question of default, or are they to decide the question of wilful default? Supposing Germany, at any moment, finds she cannot pay these huge sums running up to £175,000,000. [An HON. MEMBER: £125,000,000."] Afterwards it develops. There is no limit at the present moment, whatever the figure is. If she says she cannot pay, to whom does she appeal? Under the Treaty of Versailles, she goes to the Reparation Commission. Would the appeal be to the Reparation Commission, or to these new Committees?
    2796
    The next question I put to the Prime Minister is this: If it is the Reparation Commission which decides the question of wilful default, is the American representative to be added to the Reparation Commission for that purpose? That is a very important point. I am not criticising the Dawes Report, but it is introducing one new element which is rather dangerous. It has got six tests of prosperity. Anyone who has followed the difficulties of this business knows perfectly well it has got six tests in order to arrive at the index figure, upon which the demand, for the time being, rests, and the whole success of the Dawes Report depends upon that automatic machine working perfectly. If it does not, it breaks down. May I trespass for one minute upon the patience of the House to point out exactly what it is? We are paying at the present moment—I forget what it is—£30,000,000 or £40,000,000 to America.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: £33,000,000.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the question of how that money is to be paid, I see that Mr. Cape says—and I am bold enough to agree with him—that it is paid out of the surplus which is invested. Before the War, we had a surplus of about £200,000,000, £300,000,000 or £400,000,000, according to whether we were prospering or not. I forget what our surplus is now.
    Sir F. WISE: £100,000,000.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That enables us to pay, and still have a balance of £67,000,000. What is that surplus? Because it has a bearing on this issue. It is the surplus over what we pay for our imports of food, raw material, and so on. Supposing we had to pay £125,000,000, clearly we should be done, although we are a very much richer country than Germany. But the Dawes Commissioners, for the first time, have introduced evidence which I cannot, for the life of rue, see has anything whatever to do with the capacity of Germany to pay a sum across her frontier. Her tests of internal prosperity, what she pays for her tobacco, her sugar, her railway receipts, her iron and steel—those are tests of internal prosperity, but she can only pay in two ways. I cannot think of any other way in which Germany can pay. She can pay

    2797
    out of that surplus, worked out in exactly the same way as our surplus is worked out, or she can pay by payments in kind. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well how payments in kind work out. There was an agreement entered into in 1922 between the French and German Governments, known as the Wiesbaden Treaty, for deliveries in kind for the purpose of reparation. My recollection—and I am speaking now purely from memory—is that the French Government had anticipated that, under that Agreement, they would get £70,000,000 and £75,000,000 in a year. I forget whether that covered Italy and Belgium. Let us assume it covered the whole reparations in kind for Belgium, Italy, France and ourselves. That was a very considerable contribution. It has broken down. It is a matter for France entirely, because most of that Treaty was for the supply of material for the devastated areas of France. There was nothing in it for us. It was for timber and other material for the purpose of re-building France. That has broken down, for the reason which my hon. Friends here have in their minds. The French manufacturer began to realise that it interfered with French iron and steel, with the French carpenter and with a good many people in France who were making an honest living out of an honest trade. The result was that that Agreement broke down.
    Let us see exactly where we are Germany, therefore, can only pay a limited amount in that respect. Coal she can deliver, potash and dyes she can deliver. There is a certain amount of timber she can deliver, although I have always thought that was exaggerated. Beyond that, I cannot see what Germany can deliver which will amount to very much. She has, therefore, her surplus, which is for the moment nonexistent. She has her raw material which other countries can take without detriment to their own manufacturers, and there is a test reported by the Dawes Commissioners which, so far as my observation goes, and, I think, so far as the experience of this country and the Allies goes, is not a test of German capacity to pay across the frontier. Supposing, therefore, those tests are applied—tests which are not really tests of capacity to pay. My right hon. Friend opposite used to urge that German exports were the best test of all, and I think that is
    2798
    so. What will happen? Germany is in default; she cannot pay. The index figure points to £100,000,000 or £125,000,000. Her surplus points to £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 or £70,000,000. There is default. There is prosperity, according to the index figure; there is no capacity to pay, according to the realities of the case.
    What is the tribunal that decides, if Germany makes an appeal under the Treaty of Versailles, an appeal the right of which we have conceded to her by solemn Treaty, to come before a body set up under that Treaty to demonstrate that she has not the capacity to pay without bankruptcy, without ruining her currency? To whom does she go? Does she go to these new bodies, or does she go, under the Treaty, to the Reparation Commission? That is one of the questions I should like to ask, and I think it has a very important bearing, because default brings very serious consequences. There is something about trusteeship; there is something about sanctions being operated in the spirit of trusteeship between the Allies; that means that if we accept a certain machinery, that machine decrees, at any rate, that a bargain is a bargain. If you have accepted a certain tribunal, and said that you will accept its decision, sanctions must follow. It is, therefore, very vital, if there is an agreement of that kind, that it should be perfectly clear that there is an opportunity, not merely for Germany to put her case upon the conditions of the day, but also an opportunity for us to consider what our attitude should be in reference to that matter. I should like, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman what his view is with regard to that.
    I can understand how vital it is that America should be on the Reparation Commission. Is she on it for all purposes? Is she on it for the question of declaration of wilful default? Is she on it for the purposes of revising capacity—because that is in the Treaty? I can well understand the doubts cast on the Reparation Commission by the Prime Minister in the very strong statement which he made yesterday—not a word of which is too strong—in which he said that the Reparation Commission had forfeited the confidence of the world. It was inevitable. We appointed experts on it, and I think that is true of most of the

    2799
    other Powers, but, unfortunately, France put on a man who remained a politician. I am not objecting to a man being a politician if he is going to remain an expert, but this was a man who knew perfectly well that he was only on the way there, and that according to the manner in which he discharged his duties there, so would his political qualifications and chances be judged later on.
    That was fatal from the point of view of a judicial tribunal, and another fatal thing was that the French Government were always of opinion that their representative on the Reparation Commission was not a judge or an arbiter, but a delegate of the Government. M. Poincaré quite frankly invited us to give instructions to our representative on the Reparation Commission, but Sir John Bradbury always refused to accept that view of his position, and he was quite right. He was there to judge; he was there as an arbiter; and he always repudiated the idea that he should take instructions with regard to his decision from a Government which, after all, was one of the parties to the transaction. That, however, was not the view which was taken by the French Government. They always had their commissioner by the coat-tails during the whole of those years, and the moment he looked like becoming an arbiter or a judge they pulled him roughly back.
    Therefore; there was no confidence, but I agree that if America is added it does make a very great difference. It is not a question of a casting vote. I cannot recall a single case where any important decision was taken by a casting vote. The very important decision which enabled M. Poincaré to go into the Ruhr was due, not, I think, to a casting vote but to the fact that for the moment Italy sided with Belgium and France; it was throe to one. I think it is fair to the French Government to say that they have never taken advantage of the fact that their Commissioner is the Chairman of the Reparation Commission, and, therefore, has a casting vote. They have never taken advantage of that, and, obviously, they could not on a matter of grave importance. But that is not really the important matter. The presence of an American as a full member of the Reparation Commission would make all the
    2800
    difference in the world. It is not merely that he has one vote; it is the knowledge that France, Belgium and Italy would know that, if they were going to take strong action, they would have the two greatest. Powers in the world against them, and the two Powers that have a greater authority and a greater influence in dominating the economic and financial situation than all the Powers of the earth put together. They, obviously, could not do it, and that is why it is important to have America on the Commission.
    I apologise to the House for taking up so much time, but I have just one or two other questions to put, and the first is with regard to separate action by France. It was not made clear—at least, I hope it was not made clear—by the Prime Minister that France was still claiming the right to separate action, If that be the case, surely it is vital and should be cleared up, because most of the recent trouble has come from the separate action taken by the French Government. In fact, M. Herriot's trouble at this moment is due to that. He finds it difficult to get out of it. He has no responsibility for it, hut, once they are there, it is so difficult, because there are questions of the Flag which always come in and complicate the issue. It is, therefore, vital that it should be clearly understood that no Power is to take separate action. If they do, it deprives this Government and the American Government of an opportunity, which they certainly ought to have, of reconsidering even the decision of the Dawes Report with regard to the annuities which should be exacted. Nobody at this moment can tell—I defy anyone to tell—how much Germany can pay four or five years hence. I do not believe that that index would determine it. You cannot determine it by an automatic index of that kind. If there were any index at all, the best index would be the index of exports.
    Before we are committed to a position in which we should have practically to make war on Germany—and a different Germany from the Germany of to-day, for the boys who were 18 when the War broke out are now 24, and five years hence will be 29. The men who remember the horrors of war will be passing away and the others will be coming on. That I; the Germany with which we shall be dealing when the index finger points to

    2801
    £125,000,000, and it is vital that it should not point to war—I do hope we are not going to tic our hands to such an extent that we shall not be in a position to reconsider even the Dawes figures when that time comes, and certainly no single Power ought to be in a position to declare war for itself. The lesson of the late War is that, once the fire is lit, it spreads all over the world, and the tinder will be drier then. Therefore, it is important that now we should make it clear that 1922 must not be repeated. It could have been done 18 months ago without disastrous consequences, without calamitous consequences, though not with out serious consequences. I do not believe it could be done five years hence without disaster. I do hope the Prime Minister will have a clear understanding that the Allies must act together, that if there is any difference of opinion between them, either the Hague Tribunal or the League of Nations, which may be a formidable factor then—it depends very largely upon whether America comes in—or some authority, will be called in to decide the issue, and that it should not be left to one Power to do so.
    I asked the Prime Minister a question yesterday with regard to distribution. This is a vital matter. At the present moment we receive 22 per cent. of whatever is paid. Let us consider quite seriously what that really means. For the first year or two, most of the money that comes in will be either costs of armies of occupation or payments in kind. The cost of our Army of Occupation is, I hope, coming to an end in January, and, therefore, we shall receive nothing from them in that respect. Payments in kind come to very little, I think, so far as this country is concerned. The amount under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act has been cut down from 26 per cent, to 5 per cent., so that there is very little left. I do not know whether it is going to be continued. That is rather important. But what does it mean? Who is to pay our 22 per cent.? Germany, obviously, will not pay. She pays only £50,000,000 in the aggregate for armies of occupation and for payment in kind, and, having done that, she has no further obligation. Someone, therefore, receives more than his share. If one of the Allies receives more than its share, is it going to pay so that we shall get ours? With regard to armies of occupation, my rights
    2802
    hon. Friend knows that there was an agreement that the amount should be limited to £12,000,000 a year. Up to the present it has not been kept.
    I have put these questions, I hope in no unfriendly spirit, but purely in order to elicit information, as we are separating for the Recess, and it is well that we should know. I am genuinely glad that the Prime Minister and his colleagues have invited Germany to take part in a real conference. For reasons into which I need not enter, it was impossible at the Treaty of Versailles, one reason, amongst others, being that it would have prolonged the Conference for months, and there were huge armies which had to be maintained until peace was signed. There was a good deal of force in the French plea that it could not possibly be done, but, whether it was right or wrong, it is an accomplished fact. In 1920, however, they were summoned to a discussion, and so they were in 1921 and in 1922. I am very glad that they are summoned to a conference now, and I have no doubt at all that they will be made to feel that it is a real conference, that it is not an attempt to dictate terms to them, that they are to be in a position to argue their case, and that, if there is any case which they can make, concessions will be made, if necessary, in order to make this a success, because everything depends upon their good will. The final success depends upon their working this thing willingly.
    I fully realise the difficulties which the Prime Minister has had. He has had to deal with a state of things in France which I know full well. He has had the advantage that there is a man at the head of affairs there who is of a different mind from some of his predecessors. He has had the advantage that there is a Parliament there which is different in its tone, its temper, its spirit, and its composition from the Parliament that was elected immediately after the War. Nevertheless, there are certain fundamental difficulties. When you come to deal with French public opinion, there is the real, I will not say hatred, but there is the real fear of Germany. There is a constant apprehension of what Germany will do. There is the memory of two invasions and two devastations of France. All that is in their minds. There is the fact that they have got to increase their Budget annually by hundreds, and even

    2803
    thousands, of millions of francs, to repair damage that was wantonly inflicted by Germany upon their territory and upon their people. There is the fact that they cannot meet that liability, and that very much adds to the difficulties of M. Herriot. I tell the Prime Minister this, that if he achieves now not a final peace—I think that is impossible for the reasons I have indicated—but if he takes a step further and a big step forward in the direction of peace, not merely will this House be glad, not merely will Britain be glad, but the whole world will be glad, too.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman's speech, as all his speeches are, was, of course, a remarkable one. Whether it attracts agreement or excites disagreement, I cannot help thinking it will mainly cause surprise, unless the impression left upon my mind is very different from that left upon others. After all, he was the author and the most distinguished protagonist of the policy of making Germany pay, a policy with which I entirely agreed when at that time a humble follower of his. I do not know whether he still adheres to what I have so frequently heard him say, that his policy was that of making Germany pay to the limit of her capacity.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE indicated assent.
    Mr. McNEILL: I am glad to have the assurance that that remains his policy. The only result is that, from the speech he has just made, we gather that, at all events, now he has come to the conclusion that what Germany can pay is something very elusive, because he has told us there may be a few commodities which may be paid in kind and, possibly, a precarious and small surplus out of which something else may be paid. There is one point he made, not necessarily connected with the main portion of his speech, on which I should like to say a word. That was where he spoke of our obligation, as he put it, to evacuate the Cologne area in January. When he said that, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) said the same thing a short time ago, I think bah of them left out of account that, under the Treaty, if I recollect rightly, we are
    2804
    only called upon to carry out that evacuation if at that time Germany has fulfilled her part of the Treaty. I do not express any opinion as to whether or not, when January comes, it will be right or wrong for us to carry out that evacuation, but I want to press upon the Prime Minister that I hope he will not assume that, whether desirable or not for other reasons, we shall be under an obligation under the Treaty to carry out the evacuation at that time.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said a good deal on the question of default and drew a very clear distinction between what he calls wilful and ordinary default. But surely it is not fair to consider the question of default actually at the moment when payment has to be made. It may be quite true that a debtor at a particular moment is unable to meet the claims of his creditors, but his inability may be due to a long course of previous fraud. I remember some time ago I was criticised rather strongly because I said, not in the House but elsewhere, that in my judgment Germany was not only a defaulting but a fraudulent defaulting debtor. I hold that opinion still, and I think the history of this Dawes Report is really going to prove an affirmation of that position. This Commission expresses the view that it would be within the capacity of Germany to meet the obligations which the Report seeks to impose upon her and it goes on to say that, if she meets those obligations, very substantial payments on account of reparation will thereby be made. Germany has got an ample supply of efficient financial experts of her own. After all, if she had really had from the first the will to meet the obligations which she had contracted for under the Treaty, there was nothing to prevent- Germany forming a Dawes Commission of her own or something similar, and there was nothing to prevent her putting forward the same sort of proposals without waiting to have this scheme devised for her and presented to her by her creditors. I agree with the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that the scheme which has now been debated in this Conference will be brought to a successful issue.
    I think the Prime Minister ought to be and I have no doubt is very grateful to us on these benches because, on the eve of his advent to his present position, we

    2805
    took steps which led immediately to the setting up of this Expert Committee and procuring the invaluable co-operation of the very distinguished American citizen who, by accepting its Chairmanship, has done an immense service to the world. Therefore, having taken that step, the Prime Minister is, I am sure, grateful to us, not merely for the value of the Committee on its own merits for what it may do, but because it has saved him during the seven months since he went to the Foreign Office from what he otherwise would have suffered—the harassing necessity of seeking other solutions. All he had to do was to wait until the Report was issued and then, very skilfully, as I hope he is doing, endeavouring to give effect to its recommendations. One point on which I unreservedly congratulate him—I do not think the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was so ready to congratulate him on that point—is the determination he has shown to maintain the Entente and the success with which he has continued to cultivate friendly relations with France. In fact, so satisfactory is that from my point of view, that I am going entirely to refrain from recalling some of his past declarations and his former criticisms of us, which I freely confess now led us to some apprehension as to what his course might be in regard to our relationship with France.
    The Conference over which he is presiding, as I understand it, has one sole aim. I do not think it has anything to do with the evacuation of the Ruhr, on which the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said so much. Its one and only aim, as I understand it, is to devise machinery by which the scheme contained in the Dawes Report may be carried into practical effect. That scheme, as the right hon. Gentleman said truly enough, is very intricate, technical and complicated; therefore it is not surprising that the measures which are now being taken or proposed for giving effect to it are themselves not perfectly easy to understand, and are sometimes difficult to follow. It is very difficult, I think, to be certain exactly how they will work out.
    It appears to me, in view of past experience, that there are two] points which stand out as of primary importance. The right hon. Gentleman has already said something about them both, although
    2806
    I do not think he quite correctly interpreted what is being done in the Conference—I mean the two points of the machinery, by which it may be authoritatively declared that there has been default by Germany in carrying out her obligations, and the second point, following from that, that if and when it has been authoritatively declared that default has taken place, what sanctions may be used, and under what circumstances and by whom, in order to bring pressure to bear by the creditors. As I understand it, what has been now arranged with regard to the declaration of default is really a compromise between the British and the French points of view. I hope that compromise—I see no reason to believe it will not—will be found to work very smoothly, because we know that at the outset, when preliminary negotiations were going on, the Prime Minister intended entirely to supersede the Reparation Commission. I think he was very well-advised, when he found that met with a most hostile reception in France, to defer on that point to the French nation. But I cannot agree with what the right hon. Gentleman who just sat down said in regard to the reference the Prime Minister made yesterday to the Reparation Commission. I do not want to speak too strongly about it. I thought at the time it was, to say the least of it, indiscreet, and I certainly think it was unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman, in his position, to pass such a very sweeping condemnation. His words were:
    "On the British and American markets confidence in the Reparation Commission as a judicial body for declaring default has been completely forfeited,"—
    That may be so, as a matter of fact. He goes on:
    "and we are informed that so long as it could destroy the economy and credit of Germany by a declaration of default which as a matter of fact might not exist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August, 1924; col. 2528, Vol. 176.]
    Whether he is stating his own opinion or recording what he has heard front other authorities, I think, on the whole, it would have been very much better if the right hon. Gentleman had not committed himself to a phrase of that sort with regard to an international body to whom very important functions are to be confided under the scheme which he is now arranging. The Reparation Commission

    2807
    continues to be the primary authority for this particular purpose of declaring default. I quite admit that its character has been very considerably modified by the admission to it of an American citizen, and also by the system of arbitration which lies behind it. Nevertheless, not only for this purpose but for others in this general scheme of carrying out the report, the Reparation Commission remains an international body of very great importance, and I think it would have been more becoming, to say the least of it, if the Prime Minister had not been quite so disrespectful in his reference.
    Behind the Reparation Commission there is to be, apparently, what is called an arbitral tribunal, consisting of three persons. These three persons are themselves to be appointed by the Reparation Commission, and their only qualifications for the post are that they are to be impartial and independent. It is very desirable that they should be so, but I hope the Prime Minister when he speaks will say exactly how these qualities are to be found. Does "impartial" mean or does it not mean that they are to be men of neutral nationality; men of nationalities that were not concerned in the War? I should not have thought that that in itself would have secured an impartial mind for an individual. Therefore, I do not know what the phrase "impartial" really means. I am only anxious to find out how this arbitral tribunal is to be secured. In this connection, what is the meaning of the phrase "independent." Of whom or of what are these persons to be independent? Does that mean anything more than that they are not to be appointed by any Government, or that they are not to have any relations with any Government, or what does the phrase "independent person" in that particular connection mean? I freely admit that the scheme, with this arbitration behind it, and the new position of the Reparation Commission, will make it much more difficult than it was in the past to obtain a declaration of default. I hope that the elaborate system of double-barrelled or alternative arbitration which characterises the scheme as a whole at several points, in a case where unanimity cannot be reached on the part of the authority primarily responsible, will not be found rather to clog the machinery
    2808
    than to lubricate it. It seems to me that it may be extremely cumbrous in its working.
    Now I come to the second point. If and when default has been declared, what are the sanctions that may be carried out I cannot help thinking that it is significant that, as far as I have been able to discover, nowhere is it laid down what sanctions are open either to the Allies as a whole or to any one of them, or how they are to be specified by any authority. We are told that the Reparation Commission having declared a default may recommend sanctions to be taken. What is the use of their recommending sanctions when no one is under any obligation to adopt their recommendations? I should not have thought it was worth While saying in these circumstances that it was open to them to make recommendations, which it was perfectly lawful for them to do in any case if the Governments concerned wished to have their views. What appears to me to be a most important provision in regard to this point is that the Allied Powers agree not to resort to sanctions unless there is default within the meaning of Section 3 of Part 1 of the Dawes Report. That is where I think the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs missed what is being done, because he spoke—I suppose he was referring to a report of one of the subcommittees—as if there was a departure from the Treaty in leaving out the word "wilful." I do not gather that that is so. They agree that it must be within the meaning of Section 3 of Part I of the Dawes Report. This Section refers to
    "flagrant failure to fulfil the conditions accepted by common agreement."
    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that "flagrant failure" is a minor phrase compared with "wilful default." I should have thought that if it was flagrant default it was therefore doubly-distilled wilful default. Section 14 of the Dawes Report refers to the ease of Germany's wilful failure to meet obligations. I would ask the Prime Minister where there is any difference between their two definitions. I should have thought—it would have been better if identical language had been used—that they have in mind the same sort of default, when in one case it is called "flagrant failure'" to fulfil the conditions, and in the other "wilful failure" to meet obligations.
    The PRIME MINISTER: They are both included.
    Mr. McNEILL: That is what I thought. I thought that it was really aiming at the same class of default. May I call the Prime Minister's attention to another point? I have quoted the language of Section 14. Section 14 in the case of that wilful default recommends a sanction, and a very serious sanction, because the sanction that it recommends is control of German expenditure and revenue, which it calls "general budgetary control." Has it been, or has it not been agreed by the Allies that in the case of this wilful or flagrant default the sanction is to be that which was recommended by the Dawes Committee, namely, "general budgetary control," that is to say, taking over the whole financial system of Germany and administering it on behalf of the creditor nations? On the other hand, if that is not so, is it that reliance is being placed on the mere improbability that the case will arise? If so, I think it is rather dangerous. It appears to me that if that were so, it is a question of gambling on improbabilities. It is true that the case may never arise but, surely, provision should be made for the case where it does arise.
    The matter is made even more perplexing when I find in what I may call the London agreement—the agreement which is now being negotiated—that in case a default occurs, and I suppose it is the same wilful default, the Allied Governments undertake that they will confer on the nature of the sanctions to be applied. That really is very significant, not so much for what it says as for what it does not say. First of all, obviously, in any case, whether you put it in a written agreement or not, the Allies would confer as to what they were going to do. They have done so in the past when they were in disagreement, and they would do so in any case. The fact of putting into this agreement that they undertake to confer as to the nature of the sanctions to be applied means and proclaims that they have not been able to agree upon anything further. It is quite obvious that if they could have gone further; if they could have said, "We agree to take sanctions of such-and-such a nature," they would have been only too glad to do so.
    2810
    Therefore, it means really that no agreements have been come to on common action in that case.
    This becomes still more clear when you find that although at numerous places through the machinery which is to be set up provision is made for arbitration, for double-barrelled arbitration or alternative arbitration, when we come to this vitally important matter of a possible disagreement, when the Allies of the creditor nations confer as to the nature of the sanctions, and where it is possible there may be disagreement, the allusion to arbitration is significantly absent. Therefore, it appears to me to be quite clear that there has been, unfortunately as I think, failure to agree upon that point. It comes to what I think the Prime Minister himself acknowledged in the House yesterday, that there is no provision for common action and that each Power reserves the right to act separately. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, in looking at this subject of separate action by the Allies, recalled that yesterday the Prime Minister was very emphatic that he has done nothing, and will do nothing, that can be construed as acceptance of the French view that they were entitled to take separate action under the Treaty of Versailles. That is all right, but it will not prevent the French holding their own views, nor will it prevent them, if they think that the occasion demands it, acting upon their views. Therefore, I do not quite see how the situation in that respect has been very much altered.
    As I see the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in his place, may I refer to a criticism which he passed regarding myself, in the last Parliament? It is very relevant to this point. I remember that he criticised me because I said that, as far as I could see, there were no means by which as between the French view and our view, in relation to separate action, anybody could decide which was right and which was wrong. I remember pointing out to my right hon. and learned Friend that it was perfectly useless for us to brandish in the eyes of our Allies or of anyone else the mere opinion of our Law Officers.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: Yes, but there is provision in the Treaty of Versailles itself for referring to the League of

    2811
    Nations, the interpretation of the very part of the Treaty under which this difficulty arises.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. McNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no use in putting forward an argument if others, who are concerned, do not take the same view. What we were confronted with, and what the right hon. Gentleman is going to he confronted with is, that no matter how clear it is that one course is right and another wrong, other people, presumably entitled to form an opinion and act upon it, take diametrically the opposite view. That is the difficulty, and there is no possibility, so far as I can see, of getting over it. Again, differing probably from right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, I warmly commend the Prime Minister. I think that he rather shrinks from my commendation, and, if so, I must apologise for administering it to him, but I cannot withdraw it, and, therefore, I say that I warmly commend the Prime Minister in that, while holding, as we do, that the action of the French in relation to the Ruhr was illegal under the Treaty, he has also, in the seven months during which he has been in office, followed our example in scrupulously refraining from doing anything to embarrass the French Government, who are our Allies, in carrying out that policy.
    Speaking generally, the Conference, as I understand it, seems to have concerned itself more with methods dealing with a threatened breakdown of the Dawes scheme than with the essentials of the scheme itself. For example, Section 14 of the Report recommends the assignment of certain German revenues and customs—tobacco, beer, sugar, etc.—as security for the fulfilment of German obligations. This assignment is not a mere security against some future contingency. The recommendation is that this assignment should take place forthwith. It may be, and probably is, true that that cannot be done before you have ascertained the attitude of the German Government, but have the Allies agreed among themselves as to how the administration of details of that sort is to be set up? These assigned revenues, as I understand, are to he under the control of a Special Commissioner as laid down in Section 16 of the Report, and
    2812
    that Commissioner is to have under him a number of Sub-Commissioners to deal respectively with the various categories with which they are severally charged. What I cannot discover anywhere is that it is provided how or by whom the Commissioner is to be appointed, how the Sub-Commissioners are to be appointed, and from what bodies.
    In the case of the agent for payments and of the trustees, the appointment is to rest with the Reparation Commission, but I do not think that anything is said about the appointment of the Commissioner of controlled revenue, and yet we know that there can be hardly any more fruitful source of friction than the appointment of international officers of this sort, and I should he glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether any arrangement, and, if so what, has been made for dealing with that point? I would further like to call his attention to the fact that the Dawes Report iteself, while making suggestions under the head of organisation, when these various officers are dealt with, inserts this paragraph:
    "These suggestions naturally far from exhausting this important subject"—
    that, is, the subject of organisation—
    one of the most important of our plan. They are laid down simply as an indication as the drafting of the rules for such a co-ordination will devolve upon the Reparation Commission, so far as they have power, and upon the various Governments."
    I mention that as an illustration of what appears to me to be a vast amount of detailed arrangement which, some time or other, will have to be made for carrying out the Clauses of this Report.
    The PRIME MINISTER: They are all in hand.
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us any information about that matter, but so far as the published Report goes, very little has been said about many details, and the Conference seems to have concentrated its attention more upon provisions for a breakdown in the particular machinery. While, therefore, I freely acknowledge that the Conference has done a great deal of useful work, mainly, so far as I can see, in the nature of eliminating likely causes of future disagreement between the Allies, it seems also to have left a great deal of ground untouched as yet. I dare say that that

    2813
    is the best line that could be adopted until it became known exactly how far the German Government is prepared to go in not merely accepting the Dawes Report, but in assisting in a bona fide way the working of the scheme in detail. But, at all events, it is clear that a very considerable advance has been taken, and that the whole position in relation to the problem of reparations, which has troubled not only the present Government but several of their predecessors, appears to be in a more hopeful state in consequence of the Conference which is now going on than it has been at any time during the past three years, and we on this side will be only too ready to offer our congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman if he carries the matter through to a successful issue.
    Mr. MOSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began his remarks by the lament that he found himself deserted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in the ancient contention that Germany must pay. I hope that he will find some consolation, upon being left alone on the battlefield, from the heroic situation in which he now finds himself placed, but I would remind him that when anyone is left alone upon the battlefield, when the whole army has deserted, he must he one of two things—either the most courageous man in the army, or, on the other hand, the only one who has not had the wit to run with the rest. After listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, I can wholly sympathise with the feeling of isolation and dismay which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down must have experienced during the course of this Debate.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman went on rather to claim credit for himself for the present great advance in the solution of the European difficulty. He seemed to think that, because the Conservative party had set up the Dawes Committee, they therefore could claim some credit for carrying through the Dawes Report, but it is quite one thing to set up an inquiry, and it is quite another thing to carry it through in policy. Labour presents this country with a concrete achievement. The Conservative party presented them with a helpless mark of
    2814
    interrogation. The setting up of the Dawes Committee by the Conservative party was a confession of failure after five years of a clear majority of the House of Commons. It was a confession of their own bankruptcy. That Committee has reported and that Report is being carried through, and is in a fair way to become the public law of Europe and establish conditions in which, for the first time in five years, we may return to normality and to sanity.
    But I would remind the House that even after having the advantage of having the Dawes Report in their hands, right hon. Gentlemen opposite, only a fortnight ago, envisaged a solution of this problem of a far feebler character than that which has been secured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. They were ready to accept far weaker conditions from the British point of view than the right hon. Gentleman has just secured. More than that, they violently attacked him for daring to stand for a better state of things than prevailed in the past. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), he had been guilty of an almost unpardonable blunder because he dared then to say that he was not going to mortgage the future of this country to a Reparation Commission which, in the past, had been proved utterly unworthy of confidence, and they said, because that contention was then advanced in the dispatch which was so much discussed, that the whole Conference was jeopardised, and that a proposal was being put forward which no French Government would accept, and which this French Government would not accept. Now we find that the whole substance of that proposal has been accepted by the French Government and it has become part and parcel of the agreement.
    But in what position should we have found ourselves if the policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, after having the advantage of having the Dawes Report in their hands, had been accepted. That proposal was that another Dawes Committee appointed by the Reparation Commission, acting under the Reparation Commission, and advising the Reparation Commission, was the solution, and that this was the more hopeful way of securing American association. These were the words of the right hon. Gentleman the

    2815
    Member for West Birmingham, who was so uproariously applauded from the benches opposite. How much better is the solution which we have embodied in this agreement. We have an American representative added to the Reparation Commission. The whole vicious position by which one nation in Europe commanded a majority on that body is removed. Not only that, but, if that body fails to arrive at a unanimous decision, then a further reference is made to a judicial and international tribunal to a superior Court of Appeal above the Reparation Commission, which can decide the issue. That is the actual achievement. Compare that with the proposal of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which said that the matter should be left for all time in the hands of the Reparation Commission as previously constituted and that the only addition should be an advisory committee set up to proffer advice which need not be accepted. That was the proposal which right hon. Gentlemen opposite put forward only a fortnight ago. We should have been tied for ever more to the wheels of France's chariot, as we have been during the last four years, if that proposal had been listened to by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. FERGUSON: And you are tied to them yet.
    Mr. MOSLEY: It is a popular observation below the Gangway to wait and see, and in the elaborate series of safeguards set up in this agreement the future peace of Europe and the position of this country are safe-guarded in the most remarkable degree. You have, first of all, the declaration that the issue whether default has occurred is to be decided by an impartial and judicial tribunal. You have abolished the position in which one country was the judge and the debt collector in its own cause. You have, in fact, the condition of war removed for the first time after it came. In place of the rule of war, you have the rule of law once again constituted in Europe and a system of arbitration set up instead of the undivided power and authority of one nation to take what action it likes in the wreaking of its private revenge. But you have an additional safeguard, not so far mentioned or stressed in this Debate, a safeguard to which I personally attach even greater importance—the safeguard mentioned in the speech of the Prime Minister
    2816
    yesterday in relation to what happens even in the event of wilful default being declared, that any sanction to be taken shall do no damage to the security of the Joan. That is a provision which gives a very great safeguard indeed against the repetition of any of those events which have struck such a blow at the economic machinery of Europe in the past.
    Mr. PRINGLE: You might as well put in a text from the Sermon on the Mount.
    Mr. MOSLEY: I am sorry to find the Liberal party turning its back on the Sermon on the Mount.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member in his new orientation is more than usually obtuse. I was suggesting that reversing the Sermon on the Mount was not a good legal sanction.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Let me try to enlighten the abnormal mentality of the hon. Gentleman with my view of the situation. If a sanction cannot be taken which does not interfere with the security of the loan, it is evident that no sanction can be taken which seriously interferes with or destroys the economic position of Germany or of Central Europe. That is quite evident. In fact, the total resources of Germany are the security for this loan. Any sanction, then, which interferes with the general position of Germany interferes with the security of the loan. Consequently, it seems to me that this is a very serious safeguard against the repetition of any such thing as the Ruhr adventure, or any proposal to stick bayonets into the economic machinery of Europe which may be made in future. There is one question which I wish to press on this point. In the event of a difference of opinion occurring as to what will, in fact, interfere with the security for the loan, will this matter also be referred to arbitration or some impartial body of experts, or some other tribunal. It is not mentioned in the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday, but I should imagine that something of the kind would be implied in this part of the agreement.
    Of course, with every settlement of this kind, involving great compromises and hard bargaining, there must be many things to which we should all object. The great merit of the scheme, as I see it, it that it provides for its collapse—a very rare provision in human affairs and one which is a great credit to the scheme.

    2817
    For instance, if the view which has been maintained from these benches is proved to be correct, that payments between nations on a large scale, that reparations, that tributes between countries, cannot be carried through without a great measure of economic dislocation, automatically under the provisions of this scheme the payments become suspended. That is, from a left wing point of view, a great merit in the present scheme. It has been argued also that payments extended over a very long period of years must provide an almost burning incentive to any country to renounce and go to war. But if economic conditions were rendered so intolerable as to give the incentive to a country to renounce the comity of nations, to tear up every agreement to which it has put its signature, and to thrust Europe hack into the melting pot again, those economic conditions would be reflected in the condition of the exchanges and would bring into operation the provisions of this Report and this plan; would, in fact, suspend the operation of reparation. Although the scheme embraces imperfections, as any scheme must, I seriously ask anyone who criticises or rejects it, what are the alternatives to it? You must either accept the Dawes Report or you must persuade France as well as this country to renounce her share of reparation, or, failing that, you must provide some means to prevent France making, at any rate, an attempt, fatal to Europe, to exact reparations for herself.
    Mr. FERGUSON: You cannot.
    Mr. MOSLEY: I observe a profound economic authority illuminating this problem, as he does all problems, and I trust that his analysis of these rather complicated details will thoroughly expose my worthless arguments when I sit down. Who is prepared, in the present position of affairs, to renounce this Report, even if it does contain possible future dangers; who is prepared to turn round to Europe and to say, "There is no solution except that of isolated action. Let France go on, let any country go on and carry on its private feuds and throw Europe once again into the abyss"? Can anyone take such a responsibility upon himself? If not, one must accept this Report with whatever imperfections it may possess. One must go onward with this policy and recognise it, as I do,
    2818
    at any rate as the greatest step on me road to sanity and normality in Europe which has been taken for 10 long years past. That step forward, this great advance which takes us well on the road to ultimate peace and brings us immediately stability and security from the chaos of the last few years—I think that for this great advance we may claim some credit for those principles of international Socialism which have animated our party.
    Sir F. WISE: I have listened to the last speaker with great interest and with some amusement. I cannot help thinking that he is not making a really serious speech such as this subject requires, and that he does not realise that although a country may be prosperous it is impossible in some eases to pay your money across the border even if you owe another country. He stated that this was a first step. I agree that it is the first step. But it is not a concrete achievement, as he stated. I fully recognise that the Conference is still in progress, but perhaps the Prime Minister will forgive me for any criticisms I offer. They will be constructive criticisms and made in all good will. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) dealt with the Ruhr policy. I propose to deal with the financial side of the loan. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs stated that this was a novel situation. The large transfer of big amounts of money is a novel situation. You had practically the same position 100 years ago. If the Prime Minister will refer to the payment which we received from Austria 10 years after Waterloo he will find that although Austria owed us about £25,000,000, which was a large sum in those days, we were very pleased to settle the debt for just over £2,000,000, and we would not have received that but for the fact that London discount bankers took the Austrian bills and paid us the money. Out of the total amount of £58,000,000 which we advanced to our allies 100 years ago, the total amount received after 10 years was just over £2,000,000. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs recollects that fact?
    The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the payment to the United States of America. He said, "Supposing you

    2819
    could pay £100,000,000; supposing Germany could pay £100,000,000 a year and the amount to pay was £125,000,000 a year, it might be impossible for that country to carry it out." This is quite likely and may happen; the country might even be prosperous. I contend that the only way in which we are carrying out our debt to the United States to-day is that our Empire is the largest producer of gold in the world. With the Fordney Tariff round our neck, or round the American neck, it is quite impossible to get some of our goods into that country; anyhow, not in the same way as we would like to do. There are two main points in the Dawes Report with which I wish to deal. One is with regard to the loan. The Prime Minister stated yesterday that the basis of the Experts' Report is the raising of a loan for Germany in order to put it on its feet economically and enable it to meet its obligations and re-enter the economic system of Europe. The Dawes Report suggests that £50,000,000 of reparations should be paid in the first year, of which £40,000,000 is the loan and £10,000,000 represents railway bonds. What is going to happen to this loan? I agree that the Prime Minister states that he has no responsibility for the flotation. I believe that America is going to take a portion of the loan. No doubt she will. But the rest of the loan is going to affect the money market in this country. When we partly guaranteed a loan to Austria we insisted that. Austria should have a local loan in Austria. I believe the same thing was suggested when money was advanced by this money market without a guarantee to Hungary.
    One of the essences of this £40,000,000 loan—I think the amount is far too great—is that the German Republic should float a similar loan internally. I also understand that not all the Allies are participating in the loan. I think all the Allies should participate in it. No doubt the Prime Minister realises that a petition was presented by the National Union of Manufacturers in this House urging the inadvisability of floating this loan. I do not agree with all that they stated. But unless we do something to protect the goods coming in from Germany we shall have our markets in this country flooded with goods. It is different with the
    2820
    United States of America and other countries. As I said just now, America has the Fordney Tariff, but we want to consider seriously the possibilities of these goods coming into this country. It may be said it has nothing to do with us whether British investors take this loan or not, but in a certain respect it should be our concern because, supposing it is not even floated to the public, it means that the bankers in this country and the foreign bankers, and the underwriters will take it. That means they will have to subscribe out of savings, because the loan can only be subscribed out of savings which will prevent that amount from going into industry, or perhaps into Dominion loans. That is my first point in regard to the loan. I think it is too big a sum to grant Germany at the present time.
    My second point is in regard to the £125,000,000 which is to be raised in the fifth year by £33,000,000 in railway bonds, £14,500,000 in transport, £15,000,000 in industrial debentures, and £62,500,000 in the Budget. Five years hence is a long time, but Germany in order to pay that amount of £125,000,000 a year must have foreign trade to the extent at least of £2,000,000,000 a year. That is the minimum figure, and it might be raised to £3,000,000,000, because this amount of £125,000,000 can only be paid by the export of goods after the import of goods has been paid for. In the Treaty of Versailles it was mentioned that the German taxation should be as high as that of any of the Allies. No doubt the Prime Minister has referred to that provision. I think it is worth reading. It is in the Reparations—Section I, General Provision (236 to 244), Annex II:
    "(b) In periodically estimating Germany's capacity to pay, the Commission shall examine the German system of taxation first to the end that the sums far reparation which Germany is required to pay shall become a charge upon all her revenues, prior to that for the service or discharge of any domestic loan, and secondly so as to satisfy itself that in general the German scheme of taxation is fully as heavy proportionately as that of any of the Powers represented on the Commission."
    That is one of the most important Clauses in the Treaty. It is the Clause on which Germany has defaulted. I quite agree that Germany could not keep up the taxation which was so heavy in this country because of the inflation in Germany, but it is the first and most

    2821
    important point to put forward in connection with the Dawes' Report. I contend, quite apart from taxation, that we should also protect our manufacturers with regard to insisting on Germany having an internal loan created and handed out pro rata to the various commercial firms and industries. In connection with this internal German Republic Loan, the industries should pay the interest on their quota to the German Republic, and the German Republic would hand the amount on to the new gold bank. What would it do? It would put German industry and ourselves on the same quota as far as the internal loan was concerned, and cur manufacturers would have an opportunity of competing with Germany on fair terms. When the money went into the new gold bank, it would not be cashed. It would stand to credit and, eventually, would be cancelled. You dare not cash it. Otherwise, it would mean inflation again. I contend it would not affect the credit of Germany and it would put a charge on German industries which is what we require quite apart from any suggestion of taxation. Owing to inflation, German commerce and industry have paid off their mortgages.
    I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) does not realise how difficult is this transference of money. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury Mr. McNeill) referred to the default, but do the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Harrow realise that you often cannot transfer money from one country to another even if you are pros. firma s, unless your exports are greater than your imports. I remember the right Lion. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) two or three years ago stated that we did not want a shipload of marks. Marks are no good to us. What we want is sterling, when and how it can be transferred. I often think of that saying of Bismarck's in 1875, after the Franco-German War, when he said that if he won another war he would give reparations. I come now to the question: Is the Dawes Report possible or impossible? I have been connected with reparations almost ever since they started. I believe I was the first person to report for the Peace Conference before the signing of the Treaty of
    2822
    Versailles. My arguments were, then laughed at, but to-day, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said, economic facts are becoming better known. That is very true, and I believe in five years time—remember it took 10 years after the war of 100 years ago—we may realise the difficulty of transferring money from one country to the other.
    It may be asked what happened in the old days. It was quite different in the old days with a gold basis. The dollar or franc only moved a few cents or a few centimes at a time. I am not arguing a gold basis. That is a different matter entirely, but it gave us stability. I do wish to impress on the Prime Minister, that except for having got the United States into this Commission, on which I heartily congratulate him, I feel the Dawes Report is quite impossible, and he will find at the end of perhaps two years, or perhaps less, this will all have to be discussed again. You cannot divorce reparations from the Allied debts and the loan to the United States. They are all one, and when we think of the terms of reference of the Dawes Report, which only relate to the balancing of the Budget and the stabilisation of the currency, we come back to the Pact of London in May, 1921, which fixed the price to be paid by Germany at £6,600,000,000. I have pointed out on several occasions the impossibility of that sum. The only possible way in which Germany can pay that sum is by the whole of the trade of the world being idle except in Germany. There is one point which I should like the Prime Minister to consider. As Germany has created the renten mark, will he consider increasing the German Reparation (Recovery) Act from 5 per cent. to 26 per cent., the figure it was at early this year. I think it will bring in flume to the revenue of this country. In the old clays it brought in £10,000,000, and under the 5 per cent. arrangement it brings in about £1,800,000. I do not think anybody wants Germany crippled through hate, nor Germany made strong through mawkish sentiment, but we want a Germany that understand she must pay a bill.
    The PRIME MINISTER: If anybody in this House ought to be satisfied, I am that man—not at all on account of the support which I have had from my right hon.

    2823
    Friend, but on account of the rather novel views on economics and reparations which have been expressed from unusual quarters. I wish public opinion was enlightened in that respect. Those of us who, in the meantime, carry on the government of the country, and try to maintain good relations with other countries, must go slowly. But I can assure the House that after listening to the speeches delivered from below the Gangway and from the other side to-day, I pray most devoutly that this enlightenment may proceed far more rapidly than, unfortunately, I have found it has proceeded during the last fortnight.
    The House will bear with me if I offer an excuse. I should like to discuss the contents of the Dawes Report. They are very interesting. They raise some most fascinating problems, both in political machinery and economic theory. But this happens to be my unfortunate position: I am sitting day by day now as Chairman of the Conference which is meeting at the Foreign Office, and I have to watch with the most lynx-like vigilance—lest the discussions in that Conference should stray away from the problem of how to apply the Dawes Report—into questions raised by the contents of the Dawes Report. If we begin to discuss at that Conference the contents of the Dawes Report, we shall be there for two or three years. Every sentence is contentious; every proposal made in it has another side. Whoever has listened to the very interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) will be aware of that fact.
    The question which the Government had to consider when the Dawes Report was issued was a very simple one, namely, whether we could take the Report as a whole, with all its faults and with all its doubtful provisions, and use the opportunity which its issue gave us to try to begin a new chapter in the history of the relations, first of the Allies with each other, and, secondly, of the Allies with Germany. The Government gave an affirmative answer to that question, and, since then, I have rigidly refrained, either as Foreign Secretary or as Prime Minister, from committing myself to any of the details of the Dawes Report, and from discussing them officially, because I feel that one thing we have
    2824
    to do now is to take it as a whole, and put it into operation. We have to give it a chance, and provide, as far as we can, safeguards against any calamity that may happen, or the breakdown of any particular part That is my problem. It is a very limited one, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, quite truly, that I am not frying to setae everything. I am trying to settle a very small point—the point that I have defined, small in its compass, but, I hope, of profound importance in relation to the future transactions of France and ourselves, on the one hand, and of Germany and the Allies on the other.
    Therefore, when people criticise this, and talk about the loan, about the theory of reparation, and so on, my reply is rather in the form of a question: Will you scrap the Dawes Report, and go back to the position we have been in between 10th January, 1923, and the beginning of this year? I confess I cannot take that responsibility upon myself. I believe we should be profoundly wrong, and I have pursued a different policy. I think that what has been said to-day, even of criticism, has been very helpful. There is criticism which is bad, but there is criticism which is admirable and very good; and those expressions of opinion about reparation, about the difficulties that beset us, and so on, will, I hope, be studied very carefully by some of my colleagues across the way. If the House be the least interested in the pledge, I pledge myself to draw their attention to it. I do not know that it is necessary to deal with all the points that have been raised, but I will ask the House to allow me to trouble it with a somewhat disjointed and disconnected reply to the various points which have been made, because I feel that this is not the time for me to say very much, beyond reporting the bare, bald facts of the situation as far as the Conference is concerned.
    To-day, we reconstituted the Conference, with the representatives of the German Government present. We presented them with all the agreements we have come to, holding nothing back, and we have asked them to give us the points upon which they wish to comment, and regarding which they desire to have guarantees, and so on. To-morrow, we start what, I hope, will be an almost

    2825
    continuous session, because nobody wishes this thing to drag on, and I think the House will excuse me if I am optimistic once more. I have a glimmer of hope that, perhaps, before the week be over, we may see so much daylight ahead that we shall understand exactly what are the prospects of the Conference. There were points raised by my right hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Canterbury (Mr. McNeill) about who was going to control those revenues, and how the by-laws and the ordinances were to be drafted. I will answer by saying that the Governments agreed to hand it over to the Reparation Commission. As a matter of fact, the work is done. The Reparation Commission, with the assistance of an American expert, one of the members of the committee of the experts, has done this work; it now just remains to be carefully scrutinised, and that is in hand now. With reference to his question regarding the appointment of the Commissioner of Controlled Revenues, it is provided in the Dawes Report that he shall be appointed by the Reparation Commission. I think he will find that, in some corner or another, either by a specific reference or by some covering and general statement, all these points have been provided for by the experts.
    My right hon. Friend raised a, point which concerns me very much. The House is going to rise almost immediately, but I doubt whether the work can be finished or a report made before the House rises. The lines, however, upon which we are going, I think, are pretty well known, and all that remains to be settled is whether we can get an agreement upon those lines sufficiently satisfactory for us to sign. If there were to be any serious question that would arise, we would have to take some steps to consult Parliament. My own impression is that no such serious question will arise, and that, if there is going to be an agreement, it is going to be such an agreement as this House will quite readily accept. But if there is to be no agreement, and the Conference should fail—and I have no idea that it will, none whatever. I have fought from the beginning under the impression that I was, to use a golfing phrase, going to "hole out," and I am still standing by that, but if it did fail—I think it would fail upon a disagreement which, if reported
    2826
    to the House, the House would accept as being a very unpleasant, but a most inevitable, necessity. Therefore, I think, unless there is some very serious modification made, the House may go on its holidays and leave us in London to finish the work.
    My right hon. Friend says there was no statement regarding the evacuation of the Ruhr. As far as the economic and fiscal evacuation of the Ruhr is concerned, did deal with that. It is quite definite. A very carefully drafted agreement has been made—an agreement drafted by experts who know the administration of the Ruhr, and who know the administration of Germany. The French, the Belgians and the whole of the Conference have agreed to it and accepted it. With reference to the military evacuation, the position is this: The experts said: "We cannot pronounce upon that., because it is not within our terms of reference; but we want to warn you, the Governments who are going to put this Report into operation, that in creating or in trying to create an economic and a fiscal unity, you must remember that military occupations may have a bearing upon it."
    Well, we have not forgotten it. Moreover, the French Government have made it quite clear that they went into the Ruhr not for security, not to occupy territory, not for any purpose of a military or of a political character. When they went into the Ruhr because Germany had defaulted, so they said, they were taking sanctions against that default, and that were to back up certain economic machinery which was to yield revenue to France by what they considered to be the necessary military forces. That was the situation. France accents the Dawes Report. France accepts a new machinery and a new method of getting reparation. I do not believe for a moment—although French public opinion may have been very largely misled by certain newspapers—that French public opinion is blind to the obligations now placed upon it by the declaration of its own Government. It was quite obviously an arrangement which could not be finally agreed to until the German representatives were consulted. As I say, they have arrived only this morning, and we have only just reconstituted the Conference and adjourned after having done so.

    2827
    As regards the matter of Cologne, there again, I had better be careful. I do not think it would be wise for the Government to mix up the question of our occupation of Cologne with the question of the French occupation of the Ruhr. I do not think it would be advisable, whilst we are negotiating the subject matter of this Conference, to begin with a pledge this way, a pledge that way, or a pledge the other way. My remarks will be in the form of questions. Is my right hon. Friend quite certain that the legal interpretation of the Clause is as simple as he seemed to assume in his speech to-day?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Cologne Clause?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The occupation Clause. I am not saying what view I take. I shall be very glad if the House will allow me not to do so, but I put the question, because I think the House will then be made aware that the problem has not escaped our attention, and that action is not absent from our minds. There is another thing. Are we quite certain about this? The Clause says that, after five years, Germany in the meantime having faithfully fulfilled—or words to that effect—its obligations. Is this the interpretation of that? Can Germany, say, for four and a half years prove faithless, and then for six months be faithful, and then is our occupation finished under the Agreement? I beg the House to remember that I am putting questions that will have to be answered, but I am not taking up a position myself. There is another question. If we go out of Cologne, who settles whether any of the other Allies go into it? Supposing we go out of Cologne, and nobody goes in there, are we, under the Treaty of Versailles, under the general obligations, which are inter-Allied obligations under the Treaty, then bound merely to transfer our troops into another section of the occupied area? Because the occupied area, although divided for convenience sake into French, Belgian and British, is, as a matter of fact, one and indivisible as far as the occupation is concerned. I say this, and I say it without the least reserve: "I shall not agree to a British soldier remaining 60 seconds longer in Cologne than is necessary to carry out our fair obligations, the obligations im-
    2828
    posed upon us under the Treaty of Versailles."
    7.0 P.M.
    The next point to be raised was about default, and in connection with that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs raised the general question of reparations. I followed what he said with great interest, great pleasure and great appreciation. I put the problem in another way, and if he will allow me I will restate it. The problem of reparations is not "how much can a country afford to pay?" That is an essential question, but there are two other questions equally essential. The second question is, "In what form can it pay?" because the form of the payment limits the capacity to pay. There is a third one, another limiting one, "How far can a country which is supposed to receive payment assimilate the payment without undergoing such economic disturbance that unpleasant results may follow in consequence?"
    Why I feel rather comfortable about the Dawes Report is this: We can discuss the problem of reparations from those three points of view until judgment day, as theoretical financiers or economists or politicians, and we will solve nothing. I have never said that I could say with definiteness what was going to happen beyond this—that I knew the expectations of many people were going to be thoroughly falsified. What do we want? It is perfectly obvious if, taking advantage of our special economic and industrial position, we are going into Europe in professors' gowns or in a virgin's robe, lecturing them on either economics or on moral conduct, the result will be that they will get so disgusted with us that they will turn us out, and refuse to listen to us or to take our advice. Is there another policy? They say, I am sorry to add, a lot of them still say, that the payment by one country to another of huge sums of money is precisely the same transaction as a payment, say, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who, if he owed me a shilling, were to transfer it to me across the table. Of course it is not the same transaction.
    The unfortunate thing for those of us who, I think, have sounder views on the matter of reparation,; than that, is that as soon as we go in for conferences, we find, perhaps, a majority of our colleagues regarding us as being too soft

    2829
    hearted, and explaining all our economic wisdom by that fact. Can we do something by which we will say to those who do not take our views on the economics of reparation, "Let us try; let us see what can be got out of those proposals." But if we do that, we must be very careful to safeguard ourselves against troubles which may come from unfortunate experiments. If I am comfortable about the Dawes Report, it is because I think the machinery of the Dawes Report provides for that. I will not go into all the details of my right hon. Friend's criticism under that head. I may have misunderstood him, but I think he made one mistake. He assumed that if Germany were not delivering her goods, if the goods were not, actually crossing the border, that would create a default. Not necessarily. Germany's responsibility is to pay into a pool, which is kept in Germany, but which is not under Germany's control. When Germany has handed over her currency, her goods, her scrip, her wealth, in whatever form it be, to the various controls set up under the Dawes Report, that is the end of her obligations. That goes into the pool, into a central pool, and then, only in so far as economic circumstances will allow—they are provided for: the rate of exchange, the balance of trade, and so on—then only will that pool be drained; one stream going to France, another stream going to another country, and so on. That is the machinery, and it is very important to remember this when one criticises the Dawes Report.
    There is another point about the Report. There are now two kinds of defaults. There was only one under the Treaty of Versailles. There is the default which arises from the failure of German resources to yield what is expected of them to each of the various controls—the rail, ways, the Customs, industries and so on. The Dawes Report provides that defaults of that kind—purely economic defaults, defaults regarding which no one could allege ill will, no one could impute maliciousness, the defaults of overestimating, the defaults arising out, of industrial disturbance, strikes, lock-outs and so on—are, under the control of the Committees in charge of the Departments, providing income to which the default refers. The default which is a serious one, and which comes before the
    2830
    Reparations Commission, is a large, general default—a flagrant default, a default which cannot be judged to be a mechanical default, a default about which it can be alleged, and about which evidence can be presented, "This could not have taken place unless there was a conspiracy in high places to throw off obligations undertaken in August, 1924, by the German Government to put this Report into operation." My right hon. Friend the, Member for Carnarvon Boroughs claimed a little too much for the Treaty of Verrailles when he said that those who drafted that Treaty were very careful to define the default.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Wilful.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think my right hon. Friend is wrong. The Treaty of Versailles refers to a voluntary default only in paragraph 18 of Annexe 2 of Part 8.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is wilful.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is different. In paragraph 17 of Annex 2, Pact 8 of the Treaty the reference is only to default, undefined; there is no qualification. Paragraph 17 makes no limitation qualifying the default at all. I am not making much of it; it is only that I would like to defend the very admirable men at the Foreign Office here and at the Quai d'Orsai who have drafted the legal section of our declaration. But the real reply is this: If my right hon. Friend will look at the decision of the Committee in the Report of Committee 1, he will find that a default which the Reparation Commission has to decide is the default defined by the Treaty of Versailles and the Dawes Report. I will read the words from the Resolution of Committee No. 1, for that is the one he has been putting questions to me about, and doubting whether we have not so widened the kind of default that we have increased Germany's responsibility. I can assure him that is not so:
    "It will be the duty of the Reparations Commission to come to a decision concerning any application that Germany be thus declared in default in any of the obligations contained either in the present part of the present Treaty as put into force on 10th January, 1920, and subsequently amended in virtue of paragraph 22 of the present annexe, or in the experts' plan dated 9th April, 1924."
    The reference to the kind of default which the Reparation Commission has to declare

    2831
    is embodied in the Treaty of Versailles and in the Dawes Report—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: "Or."
    The PRIME MINISTER: Both. If the allegation be under the Dawes Report, it must be a flagrant default; if it be under the Treaty of Versailles, it must be a voluntary default. It is quite clear, because it is a definition by reference to the dominating documents.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very sorry to interrupt. That means that if there be a failure under the Dawes Report, it has to be a flagrant failure. If it be something which has reference to the Versailles Treaty, apart from the Dawes Report, it must be a voluntary default. That is the difference. A voluntary default, that means a default of Germany's own will, a deliberate default, and "flagrant" is the word that governs the failure of the Dawes Report.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The point is this. We could not change the Treaty of Versailles. Had I tried to change that adjective—oh, dear me, it is like touching the Ark. That adjective had to be left. I was not very keen about the adjective. Under the Dawes Report, as I have just explained, there are two categories of default. There is the minor and mechanical default which does not come before the Reparation Commission, and there is the large default which does. I think the House can be assured that all the safeguards necessary have been taken to make it impossible for the Reparation Commission to have a mere frivolous complaint put before it, which might have serious consequences.
    There are still some other points to deal with, and I will content myself with just answering them, and giving the information required. What is the American to be added to the Reparation Commission for? For the purpose of considering default and declaring default—that, and that only. With reference to the index of prosperity, that is not going to affect the Dawes Report unless there be an absolutely free flow from the pool. But under the economic conditions—and I think our theories are sound here—if there be not a free flow from the pool, it is impossible that that index of prosperity should be as high as my right hon. Friend
    2832
    imagined. It is an automatic economic check which is put on. If there he a, free flow from the pool, and Germany conspires to default, then Germany must conspire to default before it can default under a high state of internal prosperity, with a good exchange for its currency. It is impossible to conceive how Germany can fail to put its will into the default under these economic and industrial conditions. If Germany has a complaint to make, it can go to the Reparation Commission, and make it; or, if it is regarding the delivery of goods, it can go to a Joint Committee on which the Allies have three members and Germany itself has three.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Can it go on the question of capacity?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It can go on the question of capacity, and the question of capacity is undoubtedly one which will be carefully examined, especially by the Arbitration Court.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That appeal is not taken away? Supposing the index finger point to something which Germany feels is destroying her currency, can she, under this arrangement, appeal, under the provisions of the Act quoted by my right hon. Friend, to the Reparation Commission, or to some body, to fix a different figure from time to time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Reparation Commission can vary the details. There is a Clause about the variation of the Dawes Report. The Reparation Commission can vary the Dawes Report without changing its substance. My right hon. Friend would find a document very carefully drafted by our legal experts, in order to meet that very point. I could not possibly put my signature to an agreement that that Report was going to be put into operation, without at the same time providing full opportunity for varying it in accordance with our experiences. It is very important that that should be done, and that has been done.
    With reference to sanctions, I confess that remains unsatisfactory. But when one thinks of the machinery, I think one sees more and more grounds for contentment than my right hoe. Friend indicated. A friend of mine the other day said, "Give us an agreement which, at any rate, Will look well on paper, even if it cause

    2833
    trouble in the working." I said, "I am rather looking the other way. I am trying to get an agreement which may look as though it is a little bit patched on paper, but in the working of which I have every confidence." That is the idea which I would suggest to the House it might keep in its mind when it is considering sanctions. No Government can take sanctions until the Reparation Commission has declared default. We may rave, and have all sorts of ideas that we are being cheated and swindled in a most barefaced way, but if we cannot get a declaration unanimously, either from the Reparation Commission, or a decision from the three experts appointed unanimously by the Reparation Commission, or, failing them, by the present President of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, that Germany has defaulted, we cannot do a single thing in the way of sanctions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Separate action."] Separate action comes after that.
    A declaration of default must be made before any Government can come together for the purpose even of considering sanctions. It was easy to get a declaration of default before. The point my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. McNeill) made was that I was setting up machinery which would delay. Perhaps I did that purposely. Give us delay. Give us machinery which means that the case for default must be made out. Bring the declaration of default away from the politicians—away from this Bench and away from that Bench. If you do that, if you place the responsibility of declaring default upon a body as near to a judicial bench as you can create, then you have got very far indeed to enable yourselves to say, "I do not mind very much about sanctions," because, if you get your declaration of default under those circumstances, the chances are that you will get unanimity on the part of the Governments as to the programme of sanctions which they will carry out.
    I admit, and I do not think any of my colleagues will object, that I should like arbitration; but do you not see what you are asking for? You are asking for an alteration in the Treaty of Versailles. I am optimistic. We may not get it this week or next week, but if we can get this machinery working, if we can get this
    2834
    plan put into operation, I believe that, before long, we shall get an arbitration body created which will interpret and decide disputed points in the Treaty of Versailles. Until we get that, there is going to be no security. But that is a matter of the Treaty of Versailles, and not a matter of the Dawes Report. As far as that is concerned, the position remains where it was, except that we put many difficulties in the way of a simple, passionate, political declaration that might be unjust to Germany.
    With regard to the distribution of reparations, there is no change. I cannot discuss the question of distribution in connection with the Dawes Report. You would require a conference of our financial experts on the matter. The income of the Dawes Report and the changes in the responsibilities placed upon the Governments for payments from their own purses for things for which they now get paid by Germany, may require a conference. It will not be settled here. It will be considered by the Finance Ministers and by the experts of the various countries concerned, and I must leave it there.
    I am afraid I have kept the Hours a little longer than I intended. What I would impress upon hon. Members is that the Government know perfectly well the specific and limited character of Conference, and their hope is that if we come to a good, friendly settlement, and if the hand-shakes which are given at departure are very hearty, they will have the most wonderful effect in carrying into operation even a somewhat imperfect scheme. I do not think it is going to be so imperfect. We are beginning the principle of our arbitration at a point where it can be applied, and I have no doubt that when the great countries of Europe have experienced its operation, they will be only too anxious to extend its scope.
    Sir J. SIMON: We are much obliged to the Prime Minister for the fullness and the care with which he has put this information before the House. I do not wish to break any new ground, but I wish to be sure, as regards the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr Lloyd George), that there is a perfectly clear under standing on one or two points only. Might I be allowed to put to the Prime Minister

    2835
    first this point, which I do not think he made quite clear to us. It has to do with the provision in the Treaty of Versailles as to the evacuation at the end of a certain five years of an area which includes Cologne. The language used by the right hon. Gentleman almost seemed to suggest that it was merely that bridgehead at Cologne which was involved. May I respectfully point out to him, what he knows very well, that it is very much more than that, because the provision in the Treaty for a partial withdrawal at the end of five years is a provision which affects an area north of a line, and that line would include, among other things, a good deal of the area which is at the back of the Ruhr, and a good deal of the area now occupied by Belgian troops. May I further point this out? I cannot see the validity of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman made in reference to this part of the inquiry. He threw up the doubt as to whether Germany's policy of failing for four years in some respects faithfully to carry out her obligations under the Treaty of Versailles, was atoned for by her good behaviour during the balance of the five years. But may I point out, with respect, that if you are asking Germany here for the purpose of getting German agreement to the Dawes Report, that necessarily involves, does it not, a wiping out of complaints as regards the past?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Might I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to remember what I said: that he must not assume that I was indicating my own view. I only wished to impress upon the House this fact, that these questions have got to be answered and if you assume that I have answered them "Yea" or "Nay," then it is doing me a great injustice.
    Sir J. SIMON: The point is one which is very important for the House, and for us all, but speaking for myself I cannot understand how France or any other Ally proposes to arrive at a new agreement with Germany now on the basis of the Dawes Report unless it be upon that assumption, that the past, whether it be good or bad, is wiped out. I am not for a moment attributing any other view to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is a commonplace of the negotiation. If you
    2836
    call Germany at this stage to your councils—and if I may say so, the Prime Minister is most warmly to be congratulated on his success in having got things to a point where that has been done; it is a tremendous achievement upon which everybody ought unfailingly to congratulate him—surely the basis of it ought to be—and I am sure the Prime Minister will support me—that it is no use talking about alleged past failures. The only possible ground upon which you can invite Germany to deal with you is on the basis of the Dawes Report, and that, whatever be the necessity for good conduct in the future, al1 question of compliance or non-compliance with the Treaty in the past is disposed of and wired out for ever. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman has not expressed a contrary view.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman gives some information about, the word "default." I feel a good deal of sympathy with him, because I must say he is one of those who greatly dislike this linguistic tongue-twisting between one epithet and another. I confess I think the word "flagrant" as an epithet is of no particular meaning. It merely means that the person who is pronouncing condemnation feels very indignant about what is before him. It has no particular meaning. As I understand the Prime Minister, the situation is left necessarily very complicated so far as regards the application of the Treaty of Versailles, apart from the Dawes Report, and the relevant question is, is the default "voluntary"; and that so far as regards the application of the new provision involved in the Dawes Report, the question will be whether the failure is "flagrant." I think the right hon. Gentleman said, very wisely, if I may say so, that he would not put his signature to these documents until he has had every word of them surveyed as a whole, and I mast say everybody will agree with him. But I hope one day we shall never be left with so awkward a double-barrelled question, which is made all the move awkward, I think, because the only provisions secured by the London Conference which holds the hands of the signatory Governments as regards he taking of sanctions is, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, the provision that signatory Governments undertake not to take

    2837
    sanctions unless default within the meaning of Part I of the Experts' Report is declared. It would obviously not be his intention that there should be a greater freedom to take sanctions under the Treaty of Versailles itself than there is to take sanctions in the event of a failure being declared which is a "flagrant" failure. I gather the intention is that neither in the one case nor the other is there the possibility of either one Government or two Governments, or any combination of Governments, seeking to take sanctions unless and until the conditions are complied with which are to be found in Paragraph 16.
    May I be allowed with great humility and respect to say that I do think the Prime Minister made a perfectly good point, when he said that although the situation as regards sanctions is not satisfactory, none the less undoubtedly he has greatly improved the position in regard to the declaration of default which is preliminary to the imposition of sanctions. I think that is a perfectly good point. The great difficulty which existed under the working of the Treaty of Versailles was that as long as a majority of the Reparation Commission—possibly members acting from very strong bias on one side or the other, or possibly even a member acting under the instructions of his own Government, in the case of some other Power and not ourselves—that once a majority of the Reparation Commission has been induced to vote a voluntary default, then nothing was left, only the application of sanctions. I do think the Prime Minister has greatly improved the position, because he has secured by the present terms that this declaration of default is to be a much more deliberate and much more judicial process. We must admit, at the same time, that it is a most unsatisfactory position, now—thanks to the efforts of the Prime Minister that we have secured a more judicially-minded tribunal to return a verdict whether there has been a voluntary default or not—that once the jury has returned a, verdict, as the Prime Minister admits, each ally is really left to execute the sentence, if he thinks right, according to the way which most appeals to him. That is a most astonishing situation, and one which I believe by this time the better
    2838
    sense of the British people in all parts of the country deeply deplores.
    I do not think the Prime Minister answered another question. He was asked as regards the American member of the Reparation Commission and as to whether this American member was there, as would appear from this draft of the Report, only on an occasion when the declaration of default was under discussion, or whether the American member would also be there on occasions when the discussion was taking place about revising capacity to pay, or when the different parties concerned were conferring on the subject of fixing a sanction. That was one of the questions asked of my right hon. Friend. I do not think that particular one was, in fact, answered.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The American member is there only when the Reparation Commission is dealing with the declaration of default under the Dawes Report. Outside that, it is inside the Treaty of Versailles.
    Sir J. SIMON: So the result is that the American member does really sit on a discussion of the capacity to pay or revising the capacity to pay, but I gather not on the subject of discussing sanctions.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It all depends. If the question of capacity to pay is raised, say, apart from any other problem and on its merits or demerits, I should think the decision would be that the American member could not sit. But if the question of capacity to pay is raised in connection with an alleged default, then the American member does sit.
    Sir J. SIMON: There is another point. It has to do with what really is the gravest question of all—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman regrets the position as much as the rest of us do—that is, the question whether or not, in connection with the new arrangements, any agreement is to be hoped for on the subject of the evacuation of the Ruhr. I, perhaps, may be allowed to point out this, though it has already been said. When Mr. Bonar Law, in January, 1923, was discussing with M. Poincaré the proposals to impose a sanction, M. Peincaré insisted again and again that, so far as he was concerned, what he was proposing in reference to the Ruhr was not a

    2839
    military expedition. I read his words. He proposed
    "pledges which possess no military guarantees."
    The only possible justification for the French army going into the Ruhr was, it was alleged, that if they endeavoured to impose economic sanctions and controls, sending in mining engineers, technicians and all sorts of peaceful expert people, that it was necessary to back them up by an adequate military force. It does follow absolutely inevitably, as I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, that the moment you give up the economic sanction which France claimed to be imposing upon the Ruhr there can be no justification for quartering the French army in the Ruhr more than anywhere else. The right hon. Gentleman says that he was keeping strictly within the four corners of the Dawes Report. It is true that the Dawes Report does not in terms say that the French army should be withdrawn, though it gives a pretty broad hint.
    The significance is that all this is in relation to the question of a loan. Let us consider what happened in the case of Austria. When the loan was raised for the purpose of reviving the fortunes of Austria, the very first article of the Agreement which was made between the Allies was an article to the effect that Austria's neighbours guaranteed the territorial integrity of Austria. It is the security which the lender has that the land of the prospective borrower is not liable to be invaded or reduced by isolation and violent action, which is the most important security of the lot. When the right hon. Gentleman said just now that he had got to treat the Treaty of Versailles for this purpose as sacrosanct—which, I must say, must go against the grain with him and some of the rest of us—he must have in mind that the Treaty lays down in Article 376 the all-important provision that disputes which may arise between interested parties with regard to the interpretation of all the preceding articles of the Treaty shall be settled as provided by the League of Nations.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not a lawyer, but my opinion is that the League of Nations can only decide how they are to be settled if its Council is unanimous.
    Sir J. SIMON: I give it up. I do not profess to know.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is the important point.
    Sir J. SIMON: I only mean that the Treaty of Versailles, which is a much criticised instrument, does contain provisions which might be understood to make provision for the interpretation of doubtful articles. Much as we wish well to the success of the Conference that is now in session, enormously improved as the result will be to Europe and the world, I think the Prime Minister has belittled the ambit of the Dawes Report, and it is very difficult to see how this Conference is going to lead to any satisfactory conclusion unless, by some means, the decision is reached that there will not be isolated action by some great Power such as that in the Ruhr. I am sure, in saying that, that I am saying what is very much in the Prime Minister's own mind. I can only conclude by thanking him for the answers he has given, and regretting very much that it has not been possible, in the circumstances in which he is placed, to give us more absolute assurances on some of those very difficult points.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I want to congratulate the Government upon getting this Bill through so expeditiously. This Measure will be a considerable advantage to the approved societies of the country, and I hope it may be as expeditiously worked as it has been passed this afternoon. I want to put one point to the responsible Member of the Government, and it is that societies would like to know whether following the passing of this consolidating Bill the Regula-

  2841
  tions that will follow will be brought forward promptly and quickly, because that is necessary in order to complete the work.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The reason why we are pressing this Bill forward before the Recess is because we want to issue the Regulations, and our intention is to have them completed so as to come into operation on 1st January next year.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The consolidation of these Acts is a matter of very serious importance as regards the actual efficiency of the administration. Again and again local governing bodies have been hindered by the lack of coordination and consolidation, because a proper carrying out of these Acts depends on people being able to see quickly what they can do and what they cannot do under them. This will be a valuable Measure to the approved societies, and we doctors are glad that the approved societies should have this Measure in order that they may realise the amount of things they can do, which hitherto they have not done. Anyone who studies this new Measure will see brought ready to hand what can be done, and I hope all those concerned with National Health Insurance will look carefully through the Bill, and they will see how very largely the Government have gone back from the original ideas of insurance. Prevention is better than cure, and this Measure is going to be largely a Measure of prevention. Large measures of prevention have been put into the Bill, and those who look through this Measure will find that there are many things they can work, which they have not worked in the past. I hope that by means of this Bill we shall be able to make a fresh start in order to get fresh preventive measures taken.
  Mr. FOOT: I think those who served on the Committee which dealt with this Measure will look upon the celerity with which the Bill has been passed as being a tribute to their labours. I regret that other Measures which we have consolidated in the same way have not been got through before the House rises. The Measures I refer to are the Housing (Scotland) Bill, the Town Planning Bill, and the Town Planning (Scotland) Bill, which are purely consolidating Measures
  2842

  with one or two trifling Amendments of the law. I regret we have not carried those Bills through in the same manner. Perhaps there is a special urgency for this Bill, and the House, I think, is desirous of giving effect to this Measure as soon as possible. I hope that other big Measures will be consolidated in the same way, because it will be better for the layman as well as for the lawyer. I trust that the Government early in the Autumn Session will take other consolidating Measures, and have the way clear for the biggest consolidating Measure of all, that is, the one relating to real property in this country.

  ARBITRATION CLAUSES (PROTOCOL) BILL [Lords].
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  8.0 P. M.
  This Bill is a very simple one. The House will remember, and particularly those who follow compensation law, that the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Act of 1918 enabled the Secretary of State to make schemes to cover those engaged in a particular trade or groups of trades who are subject to exposure from silica dust. Up to the passing of that Act very little was known as to how the disease arose amongst those engaged in the several occupations; and it was decided after that Act was passed to establish a scheme I have already indicated, and such a scheme was instituted in 1919 to cover the cases of those engaged in the manufacture of ganister or silica bricks. The scheme has been in operation since that date, the Home Office has taken a very keen interest in this subject, and has endeavoured to find out the result of the operations

  2843
  of that scheme. I ought to point out to the House that when the scheme was established there was also founded a special compensation fund out of which workmen's compensation was paid under the scheme. The compensation fund was made up of contributions exclusively from the trade itself, limited in a way that workmen's compensation will not be limited under this Bill. Trouble arose because of the fact that in cases of silicosis accompanied by tuberculosis no adequate workmen's compensation was payable. That is to say, when it was found that a workman was suffering from consumption as well as silicosis, then the compensation payable to that workman was on a greatly reduced scale. Under this Bill it is proposed to extend full workmen's compensation to these mixed cases. Where a workman is found, after the passing of this Measure, to be suffering both from silicosis and tuberculosis, it will be possible to pay full workmen's compensation in cases of that kind. I ought to say that this is an agreed Measure as between all the parties concerned. Some hon. Members may have doubts in their minds as to whether it is wise to make this extension, but I will point out that proper safeguards are made so that the employer will not be placed at a disadvantage whilst the workers will be in a better position if this Measure becomes law. I have one word to say in regard to the disease itself. Hon. Members who are interested in the details of workmen's compensation will be aware that there are some diseases affecting workmen in some industries that take a long time to develop. We have found out in the administration of workmen's compensation, and more particularly in relation to silicosis, that a workman might be employed by one firm, say, for three or four years, and it is not clear until some time after that he is suffering from this disease, when perhaps he is engaged by another employer. Therefore a workman under this Measure will be entitled to draw benefit in respect to silicosis, although he may suffer at the same time from tuberculosis and may have changed his employer. I might perhaps be allowed to explain that the medical men who have made a study of this problem have not been able to draw a definite line as to where silicosis ends
  2844
  and tuberculosis begins. I ought to add, too, that silicosis does not arise from very many occupations. It is confined to a very few, and at the moment the one scheme in operation, as stated, refers to the manufacture of ganister or silica bricks. We are, however, endeavouring to extend the operations of the Silicosis Act by a scheme to cover also those employed in the grinding industry—workpeople in Sheffield and some, I think, in the West Bromwich district. There are, of course, several methods suggested to prevent silica dust being inhaled by persons engaged in these occupations. When the Factories Bill is proceeded with in this House we shall explain further what we propose to do to prevent workers contracting industrial diseases. It is a very old saying, and as true to-day as ever it was, "Prevention is better than cure." The best way to deal with these things is to prevent ale disease altogether. I am pleased to know from the figures I have seen in the returns of the Ministry of Health, that there is a constant decrease in industrial diseases, but, strange to say, when human nature conquers one disease, it has a very bad habit of contracting another.
  Mr. FOOT: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it was that this disease was not dealt with when the House was considering Workmen's Compensation only a few months ago in the Act of 1923? Has the arrangement between the employers and the workmen, to which he refers, been come to since the passing of that Act?
  Mr. DAVIES: I cannot say. I ought, however, to make it quite clear that this is a special case. In fact, so special is the case of the workman suffering from silicosis that he cannot, I believe, be insured under ordinary schemes. Insurance companies, so far as I remember, are very chary of ins wing people suffering from silicosis for ordinary workmen's compensation purposes, and it is deemed inequitable for firms engaged in other trades and the manufacture of other goods to contribute towards the payment of workmen's compensation when there is a very heavy liability indeed, as in the case of this disease. Consequently, there is a special compensation fund contributed for the purpose by the manufacturers, under whose control people are employed who suffer from silicosis.
  Mr. FOOT: Following upon that, was the subject of silicosis discussed at all when the House dealt with the whole question of workmen's compensation?
  Mr. DAVIES: I am not sure of that. I was not a member of the Committee, but I should be astonished if the point was not mentioned in the discussion. At any rate, as I have suggested, the arrangement between the workpeople and employers and insurance companies in this connection is probably unique in so far as workmen's compensation is concerned, and I would point out, too, that there are some industrial diseases which cannot yet be regarded as sufficiently definite to be included in the ordinary scheme of workmen's compensation. To take an illustration—the development of cataract of the eyes in men employed in steel and iron manufacture. That is a problem that the Home Office has under its eye at the moment.
  Mr. FOOT: I hope the eye of the Home Office is not suffering from cataract.
  Mr. DAVIES: It never was, especially since the Labour party came into office. The scheme of extension that I am now expounding in connection with this Measure will provide a safeguard. It will be easily understood, of course, that when an employer finds that a workman is suffering from any disease, he may not engage him at all. The safeguard that we propose is that when he is found to be suffering from tuberculosis, that workman, by arrangement between his organisation, so I understand, and the employers' organisation will not be allowed to continue in that specific employment, because, suffering as he is from tuberculosis, he is more liable to contract silicosis as well. That is the safeguard we have in the Bill, and I do not know that I need say very much more on the subject, except to add one final word. I said that the Bill was an agreed Bill. Considerable time has elapsed since the introduction of this Bill into the House for any criticism to be levelled against it that might come from employers' or workpeoples' organisations. As I have said, I happen to be at the moment the Chairman of a Home Office Committee dealing with all these diseases that are found to afflict people engaged in unhealthy trades and occupations. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office, prior to the advent of this
  2846
  Government, was the Chairman of the same Committee, and if he were here tonight, I feel sure he would support this measure to the full. I have very much pleasure in moving that this Bill be read a Second time.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I do not wish to spend long in speaking on the subject of this Bill, because it has been so well explained by the Under-Secretary, and, I think, all will agree that it is a useful Measure to advance. There is no question about the fact that measures that apply to silicosis with tuberculosis must also apply to silicosis without any tubercle in it. It only shows how difficult it is to legislate in matters affecting technicalities of the medical profession, that you naturally have to take the technical details of the medical profession, and then with knowledge those names become inappropriate. When the Act of 1918 was drawn up, these cases were treated as one disease. Now it is found necessary to provide for cases of silicosis, which may or may not be the early stage of tuberculosis.
  There is one objection to which, I think, this kind of legislation gives rise. This is a very important matter affecting health, which is in the hands of the Home Office, and, as we shall see later in discussing the Factories Bill, the legislation is of so very wide a nature, and deals with the health of the people at such vital points, and over such an enormous field, that we have to recognise quite clearly and definitely that the Ministry of Health affects only, perhaps, the responsibility of about one-third of the health of the nation, the Board of Education another third, and the Home Office another third. In fact, there are three Ministries of Health. Arising from that, I shall certainly emphasise, on the Factories Bill, the question as to the organisation by which this Bill will be administered as part of the scheme of o this Home Office Ministry of Health, being the organisation appropriate for getting this scheme properly carried out. This scheme has to be drawn up to include cases that will be defined in various ways as regards this wider definition of disease. It is a most difficult, vital and purely technical professional matter, but one on which depends considerable sums of money and considerable financial results. That will

  2847
  be drawn up by the Home Secretary, acting with his advisers. Who are his advisers? That is the point we shall have to come to on a larger scale, but I hope I may be allowed to emphasise it here.
  The Home Secretary, although he is essentially, as regards all these Bills, a Minister of Health, is not advised in the same direct manner as is the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health has a large medical department. The chief medical officer has direct approach to the Minister of Health, is in direct contact with him, and directly and primarily responsible for his advice to him. On the other hand, the case of the Home Office is quite different. The chief inspector himself is not a medical man, and the medical inspectorate are sub-servient to the lay inspectorate. They are all subservient to the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, and the result is that the Home Secretary does not get his advice direct. The medical department have not the right of going direct to him. The result is that this scheme, by which this Bill will be worked, will not be so well worked as if there were direct access to the Minister. I only mention this now, but it will come up when the Factories Bill is discussed later on. Meanwhile, I value this extension, on medical grounds, to the very serious trouble of silicosis.
  Mr. FOOT: I quite recognise the necessity of securing the Second Reading this evening, and I will only ask the Government if they will consider the protest that was made when the Workmen's Compensation Bill was under discussion last year—a protest which was just as vigorous on their benches as on the Liberal Benches—that there ought to be a consolidating Measure relating to workmen's compensation. In whatever other respects consolidation is necessary, it is most of all necessary in matters relating to workmen's compensation. It ought to be possible to get such a Measure that the workman himself can understand it. At present the Act of 1923 is dove-tailed on to the Act of 1906. Now there is another extending Measure, and it is quite impossible for the workman without the assistance of his trade union secretary or his solicitor to under-
  2848
  stand a Measure which affects very vitally his daily life. If that could be done, I am sure it would be welcomed by all concerned.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. F. Hall.]

  LANARKSHIRE HYDRO - ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords] (By Order).
  As amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended," put, and agreed to.—[The Chairman, of Ways and Means.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. DICKSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I do not know whether it is open to me, in moving this Amendment—I shall probably get out of order very often, as I do not know exactly the procedure which governs the Third Reading of a Bill—I do not know whether it is open to me to congratulate the company on the speed with which they have managed to get this legislation to its present stage, particularly in view of the fact that the Bill as it now stands does not seem to call for any very great speed so far as immediate legislation is concerned. In Clause 48, for example, I observe that
  "The powers of the company for the compulsory purchase of lands for the purposes of this Act shall cease after the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act."
  That does not seem to imply at all that the speed of the company, after it gets the legislation, will be at all commensurate with the speed at which it has travelled before securing the legislation. Further, Clause 47 provides that there may be a further extension of the period by two years or otherwise, as the Electricity Commissioners may allow. To those of us who recall the Debate on the Second Reading, when emphasis was laid

  2849
  upon the great desirability of taking up as many men as possible from the ranks of the unemployed by means of this and other beneficent Measures, which are being brought forward for the benefit of the unemployed, it seems very strange indeed that, in regard to works of this description, the company has in mind the possibility of its labours, or, rather, its lack of labours, extending over a period of three, and possibly five., years. In another Clause of the Bill, which deals with the utilisation of the land and of the water necessary, one finds that they are going to have, as they must necessarily have certain, compulsory powers to take over lands in particular parishes covered by the Bill; but, while those compulsory powers are very general, in so far as they apply to communal lands, to lands within parishes, or to lands owned by private individuals, we discover that the terms of the Bill are much more considerate when they come to deal with companies who are already operating in that area. We find it provided, in Clause 52, that
  "The company shall not under the powers of this Act except by agreement enter upon take or use any lands of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company"—
  while, When it comes to a question of dealing with a private company already in existence—dealing with private enterprise—they can only enter upon those lands if they have come to a mutual agreement as between that company and themselves. The same applies to the company which is dealt with in Clause 53, namely, the Gourock Ropework Compand, Limited. There, again, the sanctity of private enterprise is safeguarded, and they are only permitted, no matter what the public interest might be, no matter how much it might aid the production of cheap electricity, which is one of the prime objects of the Bill, they could not take compulsorily any land that might be so necessary unless with the consent of the Gourock Ropework Company. To me that is rather a strange contrast with the wider and more general powers that are given to them to deal with lands in other directions.
  Another aspect which I think requires consideration is this: As a few Members of the House know, and as the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Ceptain Elliot) knows, perhaps, even better than
  2850
  I do, this particular area is one of very great beauty. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and, in fact, all hon. Members, unless their minds are tainted and their vision spoiled and dimmed by private concerns and the hope of private gain for themselves or their companies, will agree with me that this is an area which ought to be dealt with somewhat reverently, and I notice that that thought has not been altogether absent from the minds of the gentlemen who are promoting this Bill. I notice that they are taking certain precautions to preserve the amenities and the beauties of that particular area in my Division, which includes the famous Falls from which, to some extent, the water supply is to be taken for the purposes of this company. I find that in Clause 37—from which I must read in order to convey the substance of it to hon. Members—it is provided that
  "In the execution maintenance and working of the works authorised by this Act all reasonable regard shall be had to the preservation as well for the public as for private owners of the beauty of the scenery of the districts in which the said works are situated.'
  I congratulate the promoters of this Bill on having introduced into a Private Bill an aesthetic sense which, so far as Lanarkshire at least is concerned, has not hitherto been apparent. I hope that this provision in the Bill will be fully realised in the years that are to come, and, if the Bill passes, I shall be the first to congratulate them in that case on the works coming into operation. We are used, however, to seeing such provisions for precise purposes of this kind, but, in order that there may be some appearance of reality, Subsection (2) of Clause 37 provides that
  "for the purpose of securing the observance of the foregoing provisions of this Section and of aiding the company therein, it shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland"—
  I am sorry not to see him in his place at the moment—
  "at any time alter the passing of this Act and after consultation with the company to appoint a Committee consisting of such number of persons as he shall think proper."
  The Secretary for Scotland has power to set up a certain Committee, which will deal with the question of the amenities and beauty of the district, and will, I take it, consider, under the provisions of

  2851
  the Bill, any proposals of the company, and whether such proposals would destroy the amenities or the beauty or the scenic value of that area; and, under Sub-section (4) of Clause 37:
  "The Committee may make to the company such recommendations as they think proper and reasonable for the preservation of the beauty of the scenery and shall if so desired consult with representatives of the company thereon before making the same."
  Then here is what follows, once we have got that Committee going, once they have looked at this scenery with æsthetic eye and idealistic mind:
  "if the Committee are prepared to comply with any such recommendation they shall intimate their acceptance thereof to the Committee within one month after the receipt of the recommendations or within such further time as the Committee may in any case agree, and failing such intimation the Committee may make a representation to the Secretary for Scotland who, after consideration of the representation, and after giving to the Committee and the company an opportunity of being heard, may make such order or orders (if any) as he thinks fit and the company shall comply with any order so made."
  It is rather tragic, after all that, to find this proviso—
  "Provided always that no recommendations or orders made under this Section shall be of such a character as would be likely to imperil the financial success of the undertaking."
  It leaves one guessing how, after all this consideration has been given to the great beauty of this area and to the fear of destroying for a single moment a leaf of a beautiful tree, and after the Secretary for Scotland has got the Committee and set it going, they have again to consult with the Secretary for Scotland that it shall only become operative provided it is of such a character as will lint imperil the financial success. I can scarcely conceive of any proposal suggested in connection with the carrying out of an industrial undertaking which will not imperil in the smallest degree the financial success, because making the world beautiful added to financial success instead of imperilling it and increased dividends instead of decreasing them there would be no need to put provisions Of this kind into a Bill, because the companies would make it their business to increase their profits if, incidentally, they increased the beauty of the scenery. Further, this Sub-section (6) does not,
  2852
  any more than any other part of the Bill that I have been able to look at closely, declare who is to decide when the financial success of the undertaking is in peril. There never been a time in any undertaking in any generation where any proposal at all which was going to cost a penny or two did not imperil the financial success of an undertaking.
  Mr. HANNON: Tile hon. Member is detaching a single expression. He must take the whole substance of the Subsection.
  Mr. DICKSON: I am doing that. I am going and and will read it all—
  "Or being such as cannot be carried out on lands which can be acquired by the company under the powers of this Act or such as to limit the amount of water which the company are by this Act authorised to use for the purpose of the undertaking or such as to conflict with any obligations which the company may have entered into with any landowner or other person for the preservation of the beauty of the scenery, nor shall any such order require the company to pull down any works already constructed by them or to construct any other works in view thereof."
  I do not know why the hon. Member wished me to read this. Apart from that there is another point. They have actually gone into the question of preserving the scenery even from anything which may reduce its value in respect of several considerations, but again they are going to withhold the right by this Bill to exhibit such advertisements as may be in their opinion undesirable if there is anything which would deface the scenery of our country it is the conception of private companies when they put their ideas into advertising form on to hoardings. One can get more concentrated hideousness in that form than any other of which I am aware. One very strong point was put very vehemently by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman). I felt somewhat ashamed of the vehement manner in which he denounced anyone who for a single moment will seek to hold up any undertaking, to delay by a single moment any Bill which gave a shadow of appearance of finding employment for a few men within a reasonable time. The right hon. Gentleman had very full details of what this work was going to do, and no doubt he had his information from the promoters. I am sure he would not talk without authority. He said, in response to an interjection from this side,

  2853
  that the Bill was going to provide employment for 1,500 men. He may be able to tell us by-and-by how that figure is made up.
  Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: I said for a year.
  Mr. DICKSON: I will take it for a year. I do not know which year it is, whether it is the first, second or third, or which of the other two years you may get from the Electricity Commissioners. By one of the Clauses of the Bill the Company may begin operations when it has raised £10,000, but under Clause 8 the capital of the company is to be £250,000. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I do not know much about finance. I belong to that un-happy section of the community which has never had any chance of any practical experience or knowledge in such matters. But by a little sum in division, which may or may not be correct, I have calculated that if you take 1,500 men, and assume that your whole capital is raised in your first year you are going to supply for that 1,500 men wages at the rate of £3 a week for a year. That, I suppose, is a very big accomplishment until we remember that it is not allowing anything at all for materials. On that assumption, employing 1,500 men at £3 a week for a year would mean that you are going to build a castle in Spain, that you are going to require no machinery and no materials, you are going to pay nothing for water rights and wayleaves, and nothing for the wages of intellect and managerial capacity. So that in the first year—I assume you are starting very soon—it means that you are going, in order to employ your 1,500 men at. £3 a week, to eat up your £250,000, and I do not know how you are going to arrange for getting the materials necessary to carry out your undertaking It may be argued by the hon. Member that I am taking too restricted a view of employment, and that I must not view this provision merely as an undertaking to employ 1,500 men in the area covered by this Bill, and that if we counted the men who make the engines and this and that, over a certain period, you are going to employ 1,500 men. I believe if you get any number of men making engines for a year, you will have a much larger undertaking than is provided for in this Bill. That sort of argument will carry no conviction with the
  2854
  House. I hope the hon. Member will be able to show that the promoters do intend to employ these men. I want to see them employed very soon, if the Bill becomes law. Carrying the hon. Member's argument further, I suppose it might be shown that in consequence of this Bill, not only will engines be made, not only will turbines be moulded and cast, but the miners and the steelworkers will be employed producing the coal and the steel for these processes. To go further back, men will be required to build the ships to bring the iron ore over to this country, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member would have been able to prove to his own satisfaction, if he accepts that type of logic, that not merely will 1,500 men be employed, but 15,000,000 of men. If he could pass on such a method of employment as that to the Minister of Labour, all the troubles of the Minister of Labour would be over, and hon. Members opposite would leave him at rest.
  Other hon. Members desire to speak on other points of this Bill, and I have restricted myself to certain points. I hope that before we part with this Bill hon. Members opposite will be able to prove that there is within the financial provisions of this Bill an adequate guarantee that this number of men will be employed, and that they will be employed at adequate rates and for the time that has been mentioned.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  My first reason for doing so is that I do not believe this Bill will carry out the purpose taken in the Preamble, namely,
  "to facilitate the provision of such supply of electricity at low rates of charges."
  There is no guarantee that electricity will be supplied at low rates of charges as far as this particular Bill is concerned. The developments in our knowledge of electricity are so rapid that it is quite possible that in the very near future we may be able to produce electricity at one-tenth the present prices. The promoters of this Bill, while they are professing that their object is to provide electricity at low charges, are asking for 8 per cent. on their invested capital. The second reason why I support the Amendment is that I am suspicious of the haste with which legislation of this kind is sought lto be rushed through this House. I am suspicious, because when the nation is beginning to

  2855
  demand that there shall be national control in connection with the production of electricity we are finding Electricity Bill after Electricity Bill being rushed through this House.
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Entwistle): I gave a ruling on this point yesterday. On the Third Reading of a Private Bill it is not in order to raise questions of policy. The hon. Member cannot proceed to argue as to Bills being rushed through, or as to the general policy of the Government. All that he can do is to argue, on the merits of what is contained in this Bill, whether or not the Bill should be given the Third Reading.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member not entitled to raise these points on the Third Reading, if he thinks that the Third Reading has been unduly rushed, and if he thinks that proceedings are being taken contrary to precedent? Is he not entitled to do that, if he thinks that this Bill has been brought forward in defiance of the precedents set and the previous rulings given by the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, and in defiance of custom?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young): May I point out that there has been no departure from custom and no departure from precedent in dealing with these Bills? Only last year the same thing occurred as is occurring this year, namely, that on the two nights previous to the termination of the Session, for the time being Private Bills were taken. I could refer to what has been done in other years to disprove the statement that we have departed in any way from the regular custom adopted.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not accept that statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am entitled to prove my point, and no ordering or bullying will put me off. This is a very vital point. Last year, in regard to the Private Bills that were taken, due notice was given to hon. Members of this House before the time when the Bills were to be taken. No person knew until the orders were given out yesterday that these Bills were to be taken last night and to-night. To the credit of the Tory party last year, the
  2856
  then Deputy-Chairman gave us due notice that the Bills were coming on so that those who were interested could be present. There is this further point, that the Bills taken last year had not been contested as had been the Bills this year. In other words the Bills taken last year were accepted as general principles, whereas this year's Bills have been hotly contested. Scottish Members are vitally interested. We may be right or we may be wrong, but we are entitled to our privileges as Members. We met the Prime Minister on this subject, and he assured us that there would be no contentious business taken in the last week of the Session and that as far as that was concerned we should not be involved in any vote. In defiance of that, and when our Members are in Scotland, the Deputy-Chairman or the Chairman of Ways and Means has brought forward these Bills, when hon. Members who are vitally concerned have no chance of being present. In these matters the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means should act in protection of hon. Members in this House.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I suggest that there is a difference between the Third Reading of a Private Bill and the Third Reading of an ordinary Measure. In the case of a Private Bill there is no opportunity given to Members of this House to put down Amendments in Committee. In connection with the Private Bill which was taken last night, 130 Members opposed the Measure on Second Reading, yet the Chairman of Ways and Means did not think it worth while to give any notice to these 130 Member, whereas notice was given to those promoting the Bill.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now raising a point which refers to the previous Bill. The points that have been raised ire not really points of order. The assurance given by the Prime Minister is not one that affects the Chair, and does not affect the ruling that I have given. It is not in order on the Third Reading to refer to these questions, and I must restrict the discussion to a discussion on the merits as to whether this Bill itself, quite apart from any other question, should have a Third Reading.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Does the fact that the procedure in connection with Private Business is so different from the procedure

  2857
  in connection with Public Business permit of a greater amount of latitude in connection with the discussion on the Third Reading?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The ruling winch I have given is peculiarly applicable to the Third Reading of a Private Bill, and covers the point which She hon. Member has raised.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: We are not protesting against the Third Reading being taken. What we are protesting against is the Third Reading being unduly rushed. Are we not entitled to argue that as a general criticism against the Third Reading being given?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, that is within my ruling. I do not think that is in order on the Third Reading of a Private Bill. This was raised on the question of the Adjournment of the Bill yesterday, and I made a ruling then that on the discussion on the Third Reading it is not in order to discuss, and I am not prepared to allow any discussion now, on the question of the Bill being rushed or otherwise.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I do not desire to embark on a criticism of your ruling. I believe that there is plenty of scope in the Bill for opposing the claim made by the company. According to the Preamble they ask
  "power to construct such generating stations and works for the purposes of such supply … and that power should be conferred on the company for such purposes and for acquiring certain lands for such generating stations and works, and generally 'for carrying out the objects and provisions of this Act."
  My reason for opposing this Bill is that no body of private individuals should have the power of acquiring land or erecting buildings that may deface the landscape, or destroying rights of way, all things which are contained within this particular Bill. We heard the argument on the Second Reading of the Bill that it would provide work for 1,500 men. The promoters of the Bill are not interested in providing work. They do not care whether there is unemployment or employment. They are interested only in exploiting the consuming public so far as the need for electricity is concerned. They are interested only in private enterprise. I trust that we are
  2858
  not going to give to a directorate of three individuals rights to acquire land in this country, and particularly in Lanarkshire, to harness the power of the Clyde, to erect buildings which may be as ugly as some of the buildings already erected under private enterprise, and to destroy rights of way for which in so many instances we have fought so strenuously in Scotland, and give in their place others which are not nearly so good or so useful.
  If any of these things have to be done for the purpose of providing cheaper electricity the power to do them ought to be given to the people of Lanarkshire, and not to three individuals and the company controlled by them. I do not propose to go into the national question. It is merely a question of what is going to be best for Lanarkshire. I hope that this Bill is not going to get a Third Reading. So far as the argument that it will provide work for 1,500 men is concerned, we can provide work for more than 1,500 men by retaining national control of our land and our water system, without giving the rights now asked for to private enterprise.
  Sir S. CHAPMAN: The matter between us on this Bill is of a very simple nature. We who have followed the tactics of hon. Gentlemen opposite know what they are after. They have told us plainly and in an honourable and straightforward manner—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to what he calls the "tactics" of the party opposite, perhaps he would just explain.
  Sir S. CHAPMAN: That is exactly what I was going to do. The Clauses of this particular Bill are nothing to hon. Gentlemen opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they are!"] They are only the stalking horse under which they are putting forward a certain amount of criticism in order to get a certain amount of propaganda for what they call nationalisation.
  Mr. DICKSON: Is the hon. Member, on the Third Reading of the Bill, entitled to deal with the policy of nationalisation?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Before the hon. Member rose I was about myself to point out that it was not in order to indulge in criticism of hon. Members on

  2859
  the opposite side of the House on a question which I should have ruled out of order on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Now that the hon. Member has made his statement, would it not be fair for you to allow me to repudiate the charge?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, it is not in order to repudiate a statement which I have ruled out of order.
  Sir S. CHAPMAN: I am sure that we understand one another perfectly well, and though we cannot say these things we know them quite well. The arguments which hon. Gentlemen opposite started have really nothing to do with the promotion of this Bill—I mean the particular criticism which they have made about rushing this Bill through the House.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not deal with that point, because I prevented hon. Members making that point themselves.
  Sir S. CHAPMAN: That rules out the second great argument, and now there only remain two points which hon. Members have made in their extremely short speeches, because to-night they have dried up very quickly. Last night they spun a tremendous yarn, but to-night they are almost exhausted. There are only two points to which I wish to refer. The hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate referred to the statement, which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill, that this work would employ 1,500 men for a year, and he criticised that statement and adduced the fact that the capital of the company was £250,000. There he stopped. Has he read Clause 8? If so, he did not disclose the whole of that clause. Clause 8 says that they can go up to £400,000, and also borrow half that sum in addition. Then the hon. Gentleman suggested that it was impossible to employ 1,500 men with a capital of £250,000. The capital is a great deal more than £250,000. If the hon. Gentleman will work it out he will find that the employment of 1,500 men means this: The capital cost of works and plant directly involved will be at least £300,000. Of this 80 per cent. at least represents wages either in connection with the site or in
  2860
  engineering works, or, further back, in steel works and iron works and coal mines, and £3 a week will average itself over 1,500 men for a year or 3,000 men for six months.
  Mr. DICKSON: Is there any reasonable chance of having this thing done within 10 years, and has not the money represented in most of the machinery and coal already been spent on the men employed?
  Sir S. CHAPMAN: The hon. Gentleman said that this company was out for private profit and nothing else. Is it not then in the company's own interest that it should get to work on this job as soon as possible? How can it do that without employing men at the earliest possible moment? The hon. Member says that they have three years to do it.
  Mr. J. JONES: They ought to get three years for doing it.
  9.0. P.M.
  Sir S. CHAPMAN: I thought the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) was in favour of finding work for the people. If so, I shall see him walking into the Lobby in support of this Bill. As to time, it is necessary to put in some kind of limit. One never knows what is going to happen. There may be industrial disputes and all kinds of things, and it is necessary to have this safeguard. But the promoters are going to get to work at once, in their own interests. I know quite well what hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to do. We have proved on the Second Reading of this Bill that they made a great mistake in opposing the Bill. The news has gone through Lanarkshire and industrial Scotland that hon. Members are opposing a Bill which will give work to the men of Scotland. Hon. Members have found out their mistake, and they want to minimise it. They cannot have it both ways. If the company is out for private profit it will get to work at once. There is nothing in the suggestion that the Bill should be delayed. It was brought forward in absolute good faith as far back as November last. The promoters did not then know that a Labour Government would be in power.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is transgressing my ruling. I

  2861
  can allow discussion only on the merits of the Bill as disclosed in the Clauses of the Bill.
  Sir S. CHAPMAN: Then my task is finished. There has been no real criticism of the Clauses of the Bill. There have been petty criticisms about amenities, the destroying of scenery, and all that sort of thing. That is all right in a young men's debating society or when you want to waste the time of the House, but it does not touch this Bill at all.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must keep himself within my ruling or I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
  Sir S. CHAPMAN: The last thing I wish to do is to contest your ruling. As hon. Members have brought forward no criticism of the merits of the Bill, I hope it will receive the unanimous assent of the House.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. It has been suggested that the Bill will provide for the employment of a certain number of men. Although, for the time being, this Measure might have the effect of providing a very limited amount of employment, yet the cost of that employment to the community would be so considerable that the House is not justified in passing the Bill. This is simply a speculative proposal. There is to be a company which is to have a certain amount of capital. Statements have been made as to the capital. I would draw attention to the precious Clause, which relates to the capitalisation of the concern. It says:
  "The capital of the company shall be £250,000: Provided that the capital of the company may from time to time be increased to such extent up to but not exceeding £400,000 as may be authorised by a Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners and confirmed by the Minister of Transport in accordance with the previsions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922."
  Then it proceeds:
  "Provided that a Special Order made in pursuance of the powers conferred by this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall not come into force unless and until approved either with or without modifications by a resolution passed by each such House."
  2862
  So that this company is going to get off with whatever it proposes to do in this connection unless there is a special Order by the Minister of Transport and unless that special Order of the Minister of Transport is passed by a direct Resolution of this House. That is asking far too much. If the Minister lays an Order on the Table of the House that in itself should be regarded as sufficient. It may not be quite so easy for the Minister of Transport to get a Resolution of the House, because the time of the House will be a matter of material consideration and the various ongoings of this precious company may not be considered a matter of sufficient national importance to put aside other importance Measures. It is no doubt true that under the present Chairman of Ways and Means precious time has been given to these Measures without opponents having an opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is again straying into that region which I told him was forbidden. He must stick to the Bill.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I again bow to your ruling, although I must say I think there has been in this matter not anything like the consideration shown which ought to be shown to hon. Members in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: I rise to speak on this Bill because it was my duty to preside over the Committee which considered it upstairs. The object of the Bill is clearly set out in the Clauses, and if hon. Members who have any doubt as to what the Bill will do, a careful perusal of the Clauses should clear up any doubts. If I may put it in a shorter form, I should say that this Bill, promoted by the parties who will erect the plant, seeks to carry out one of the schemes referred to in the Report of the Wafer Power Committee set up in 1918. When the Bill was first deposited in the other House, there was considerable opposition to it. I cannot go into that matter, but it was made clear to the Committee upstairs that all the opposition, other than the opposition of which we heard in this House on the Second Reading, had been cleared up either by agreement or by a process of Amendment in the other House. The

  2863
  Department concerned drew attention to the fact that this scheme, depending for power on the unregulated waters of the River Clyde, was not likely to be a success unless it could be linked up with a steam-generated electricity undertaking and the promoters realising that fact and being opposed by the Clyde Valley Company, came to an arrangement with the Clyde Valley Company under which, after the promoters had established the stations and presumably proved them sufficiently, it was to be taken over by the Clyde Valley Company and the power generated by the new stations was to be distributed by the Clyde Valley Company through their mains. As recommended by the Departments Report and by witnesses in support of the Bill, the scheme is now linked up with the existing and, according to the evidence given, the highly efficient service of the Clyde Valley Company.
  It was shown in evidence that, unlike some other hydro-electric schemes, the possibilities in power generation of this scheme will vary considerably throughout the year. The promoters intend to erect plant of 13,000 kilowatts capacity. At some periods of the year, in the dry season, only a small fraction of that can be operated, but that is at the time of the year when the demand for light will not be so heavy and, incidentally, at the season when the coalfields are not so fully occupied. The scheme will reach its maximum production during the winter months, when the water available in the river is higher and therefore the natural power resources will balance with the actual demands made upon the plant. By linking up this scheme with the existing Clyde Valley concern we get that balance which enables the whole proposal to be economically adjusted and worked, but, failing such an arrangement, I think it will be admitted this scheme would not be a useful proposition. Various Amendments have been made in the Bill, and the Committee has added a number of Clauses relating to the fixing of prices, the regulation of dividend, the revision of prices by the Minister of Transport, and also Clauses definitely laying down the arrangements for transferring to the Clyde Valley Company, and in certain cases making definite
  2864
  arrangements with the landowners concerned. During the Second Reading Debate something was said about the opposition of one landowner, and his case was very fully considered upstairs, and on the evidence before it the Committee decided that the scheme should proceed. From further statements made to the Committee after coming to that decision we have had reason to believe that the landowner who opposed the Bill in its earlier stages does not offer any undue opposition to the completion of the scheme, subject to the preservation of his rights under the land Clauses incorporated in the Bill.
  The most important Amendments we made relate to the prices which may be charged, and I should tell the House that, under the Bill as it now stands, the whole production of power, it is intended, will be transferred, sold, to the Clyde Valley undertaking, and, therefore, the whole power will be disposed of as a bulk supply. In the Bill as originally printed the maximum price which could be charged for that supply was 3d. per unit for the first part of the supply and 2d. per unit for the remaining supply. Those figures have been reduced upstairs, and the maximum price which can be charged in the first instance is and for the remaining supply 1½d. There is also reference in one Clause to a standard price which governs the company's provision for paying dividends. As originally printed, that standard price was 2½d., but it was shown to the Committee in the course of the proceedings on the two Bills that the Clyde Valley Company, who are going to dispose of the current, are already selling steam-generated power for less than per unit, and, therefore, it appeared to the Committee that this water-generated power would not be likely to be sold at 2½d. Obvously, if the Clyde Valley Company were going to sell the current for certainly not more than they are now getting on their steam supply, for 1d. or less, they were bound to buy from the Lanarkshire Company for less than that, so we came to the conclusion that a standard price of 1d. for governing dividend distribution would be ample.
  We further added to the Bill a Clause which requires or enables the Minister to revise the prices in every five years. The Bill is now in this form, that if the undertaking is successful and the current

  2865
  is disposed of below the standard price of 1d., the company is enabled, subject to profits being available, to increase its dividend. It may be argued with some reason that that should not be done, but I would submit to the House that it has this advantage, that the company has a direct incentive to reduce its price, because, subject to a balance being available, it is thereby authorised to increase its dividend. If it does so and, in fact, pays an increased dividend, when the time for revision comes along, the Department will have a clear case for ordering a reduction of the maximum or standard prices payable under the Bill. So I suggest, having regard to these new Clauses which we have added to the Bill upstairs, and having regard to the quite different frame of mind now adopted by the landowner who was a petitioner against the Bill in the earlier stages, that the objections which were raised on the Second Reading stage have really been met and have completely disappeared.
  There is one other objection that has been raised to-night, that this scheme may destroy the amenities of the district. I do not think, as the scheme was explained to the Committee, that there is any risk of that, and, indeed, if there is, another Clause which is now in the Bill, and to which attention was drawn by the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill, provides, as he read, for the Secretary of State for Scotland taking certain steps. We in the Committee approved of that Clause. We did not design the Clause, and I think it is only fair to say that that Clause was put into the Bill in its present form as agreed to between the promoters and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Scotland has had the matter in mind. The Department have had regard to the risk of damaging the amenities of the district, and the promoters have met them and agreed the Clause. That Clause meets with the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Captain ELLIOT: The hon. and gallant Member has several times referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I wish to point out that it should be the Secretary for Scotland and not the Secretary of State. As this has been rather a sore point with Scotsmen for many years, it is adding insult to injury
  2866
  to refer to the right hon. Gentleman as the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Sir J. NALL: I only hope that this Bill, as to which great hopes are entertained, may even result in the Secretary for Scotland being raised in status, and, if that be achieved, I am sure the Bill will be even more beneficial than some hon. Members seem to suggest. However, that Clause has been agreed by the Department, and was inserted at their instance. I would remind the House that in a scheme of this kind there will, of course, be no smoke, and there ought to be no question of spoiling the landscape. As a further safeguard, it is required that plans shall be submitted to the Commissioners. That is in the Bill, and, further than that, the Committee asked the Commissioners whether any further suggestion could be made in the public interest, and it was suggested that the actual contracts which are to be made between the promoting company and the parties concerned for the erection of plant should be submitted to the Commissioners for their perusal. That was agreed to at once. I have followed that up since the Bill came downstairs, and the agents tell me that they have already submitted the plans to the Commissioners, who have pronounced favourably upon them, and I think one observation made is that the contracts as drawn provide for One of the cheapest installations for power production in the country. I think the latter point should be of interest in view of what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the possibility of cheapening the prices. I think the Water Committee, in their Report, said that if a scheme of this kind could be carried out at a capital cost of £60 per kilowatt, it could compete with coal at a certain price. I understand that the contract already arranged and submitted to the Commissioners for their observations works out at considerably below that figure; therefore, on capital cost we are assured the figure is well below previous figures. By the figures in the Bill the maximum prices at which current may be sold are well below any maximum prices which I think have been quoted in any previous Bill. So far as the public is concerned as consumers the necessary safeguard is there, and so far as extra-

  2867
  vagant capital charges are concerned they are safeguarded as well.
  One other point has been raised as to whether the promoters will get on with the scheme. On that point, which has been also considered, we were assured the promoters intend, granted the Bill is passed, to start work in September of this year. They must do it in September of this year or they cannot start till September of next year, owing to the flow of the water in the river, and so on. September is said to be the only time of the year when they can properly start their work. Therefore, they propose to do that, and in two other Clauses of the Bill safeguards are put in requiring them to start within a reasonable time and complete in the period named in the Bill. In the Bill sent upstairs, after Second Reading, the term of five years was put in. That we reduced. They must complete the work within three years, or in a further two years if the Commissioners are satisfied that the further two years are necessary. If they do not complete in that time, the whole of their rights under this Bill lapse. Similarly, if the Minister is not satisfied that they have made a proper start within two years, he can cancel any part of the scheme of the works which he may decide. So that on the point as to whether the work will go on, or whether somebody is merely trying to stake out a claim with a view to future redemption, the answer is that if they do not carry out the scheme in three years, or, in an emergency, possibly five years, the whole of the powers lapse, and it is open to anybody else to come forward and ask for similar powers. We have also put in a Board of Trade Clause giving the Board of Trade certain options of purchase after a lapse of years. It is a purely formal Clause, and was in the Bill when it came into Committee.
  Having regard to all these facts, having regard to the need for power development in the territory supplied by the company, I hope this power will be given to them. The fact is that there is a rapidly growing demand in the area. As I said before, the Lanarkshire County Council have agreed with the promoters—Clauses being put into the Bill at the instigation of the county council—to cover
  2868
  what they believe to be the council's rights. All these questions of local and public interest have, I venture to say, been considered fully and are covered by the Clauses in the Bill as it is now before this House. I hope, having sat on the Committee upon this Bill, I must confess, as a critic, when we started, I think it only fair to say, in view of all the evidence produced, in view of the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, and having regard to all the circumstances of the Bill as it is now before the House, it is certainly in the public interest and it certainly would be against the public interest not to pass it, without further delay.
  Captain Viscount CURZON: I came here to-night unfortunately not in time to hear the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, but I was in time to hear the extraordinary performance of the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I, for a long time, thought he had missed his vocation. I think I could introduce him to a firm of "movie" producers.
  The SPEAKER: The Noble Lord is not in order in making that remark.
  Viscount CURZON: If I am not in order, and you, Sir, think I ought not to say that, I will gladly withdraw it. I resent the attitude of the hen. Member when called to order by yourself. With regard to this Bill, I wanted to hear some considered opinion by hon. Members opposite as to why the Bill to provide the hydro-electric power scheme—one of the not many schemes of the kind in this country—should not go forward. I think it is admitted that this country is particularly backward in its development of hydro-electric power schemes.
  Mr. BUCHANANI rise to a point of Order. I submit that to discuss this general question of hydro-electric power in this connection is not in order.
  The SPEAKER: The hon. Member is perfectly right, and the. Noble Lord must restrict himself.
  Viscount CURZON: In line 5 it the Preamble I have discovered the following paragraph:
  "Whereas the application for that purpose by means of the works by this Act authorised of power afforded by water

  2869
  derived from the River Clyde will facilitate the provision of such supply at low rates of charge."
  Of course, I cannot suppose the provision of power for electric light at a lower rate of charge can be expected to appeal to hon. Members opposite who are always professing that they are very anxious to secure a cheap supply of power, and who, it seems to me, are not anxious to see this question of hydro-electric power developed, and when I saw this provision in the Bill I thought I was entitled to refer to it. The whole objection to this Bill, if I understand it aright, is on the question of charge. Personally, I regard it as a perfectly fictitious objection. I do not think hon. Members are really serious in their objection, because it, is quite obvious that, if we can develop successfully hydro-electric power in this country, we shall be able to cheapen the supply of light and power which will benefit our industries. The hon. Member for Camlachie alluded to the provision of employment under this Bill. I do not know whether I should be in order in referring to it but, undoubtedly, it is a fact that if this scheme goes through it will mean work for people who are at present unemployed and, in particular, for skilled labour. We ought to do everything in this House to provide more work for skilled men. Here is a chance for the House to carry out its desires in this matter and for hon. Members opposite to show whether they really want to provide work for skilled men or whether they do not really care anything about it, as some of us think.
  The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division said that this was a speculative proposal. I tried to follow his argument so far as it was possible to find any argument in his utterances, but, beyond the fact that the scheme is not already in existence, I could not understand his objection to it on the score of it being a speculative proposal. It is always possible, of course, that we may have a dry year, and I suppose that would appeal to hon. Members coming from the Camlachie Division and elsewhere in Glasgow. At the same time, beyond the speculation involved in what sort of weather we may experience across the border, I cannot see anything particularly speculative in the scheme to develop hydro-electric power in Scotland. One of the hon. Member's objections was with regard to
  2870
  a special Resolution of this House, and that it was not easy to get, because the time of the House may not provide for such a Resolution being obtained. I cannot help thinking that it would not be hard to obtain the necessary time if hon. Members opposite were to a little curtail their eloquence.
  There is one thing I do want to know. Are we going to have any guidance from the Minister of Transport with regard to this Bill? We had a proposal before us last night of, so to speak, an allied character. I listened to the discussion on that proposal, but I heard no utterance from the Minister of Transport on the subject. Could not we get some idea from the Minister of Transport as to what his attitude towards this Bill is? One heard from the Chairman of the Committee what happened upstairs, and I think it would be of great help and guidance to the House if the Government Front Bench would disclose their attitude towards this particular Bill. The Minister of Transport might incidentally say a few words to show what his attitude is towards the whole principle of the Bill. Personally, I cannot understand what the objection is on the part of hon. Members opposite.
  There is one Clause to which I would like to direct the Minister of Transport's attention, namely, Clause 41, which provides power to stop up foot-paths and ways. Presumably this will mean roads. It is laid down in this Clause that when the company have provided an alternative route, then they may stop up the original road. I hope the Minister of Transport will keep an eye upon that Clause, because it frequently happens that through-traffic is very much hampered. A large proportion of our goods traffic to-day moves by road, and unless the alternative route is pretty strong, and the foundations of it are well made, it is quite conceivable that lorry traffic in the area affected by the Bill will be somewhat severely handicapped. Hon. Members opposite no doubt know that it is a very different proposition steering a lorry with geared-down steering from steering an ordinary private car, and unless the foundations of the road are good, large holes are likely to be formed in any temporary roadway laid down. I would ask the Minister of Transport, when he comes to watch the administration of this Bill if

  2871
  it goes through as I hope it will, to see that the temporary roadway will be made with foundations sufficiently strong to carry the heavy goods traffic which may be expected to pass over the roads within such an area. I have no other objection to the Bill. I hope the House will weigh duly the remarks of the Chairman of the Committee, and that it will not pay undue attention to the frivolous objections of the hon. Members opposite, who are only opposing this Bill on a political principle, and not in the interests of the general good of the locality or of the unemployed of the district.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I had not intended to offer any remarks on this Bill had it not been for the observation of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, who said that this Bill came from Scotland. It is quite obvious he has not followed the Bill. I have only one word to add to the admirable statement of the Chairman of the Committee as to the Bill itself and its process through Committee. There is one point to which he did not refer, and it is germane to the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green. It is this: This Bill not only affects Scotland and employment in Scotland, but it affects England and employment in England. I happen to represent one of the towns in England where employment will be affected by the passing or the non-passing of this Bill. The point I wish to make is this—that as a matter of fact, in these bad times of employment and restricted trade there is one bright spot, and that is that we have been able to do a great deal in the way of electrical export trade. There has been one great difficulty. The intention of the promoters of this Bill is to erect two hydro-electric stations in this district. The main reason is this—that the grave difficulty facing the export trade in electrical appliances has been the lack of demonstration facilities in England. Model plants are non-existent in this country. Contracts have to be made in this country, but there is no possibility of demonstrating on the spot the working of the plants in this country. By the passing of this Bill, and by the operations of this company setting up these hydro-electric stations demonstrating the plant, it will be possible very largely to increase the power of our export trade in
  2872
  this machinery. This is a very important matter with regard to the acceleration of our export trade in electrical appliances. To get a demonstration of this electrical machinery in our own country, instead of having to go to Brazil to demonstrate it, will facilitate the making of contracts, and therefore the getting of markets, which are very badly wanted by this country to-day in this time of unemployment and bad trade.
  I would beg the House to put aside all prejudice in dealing with this matter. In my judgment there are only two or three questions for this House to settle. The first is: Is the company a reputable company? It will not take any unprejudiced mind in this House very long to answer that question in the affirmative. It is a question which I asked myself very earnestly when I came to consider this Bill. The Minister of Transport knows that I have taken some small part in blocking Bills for other companies which I considered not to be reputable, in other parts of the country, but I think any unprejudiced mind, considering this company and the Bill, must come to the conclusion that the company is a thouroughly sound company. The second question to be asked by an unprejudiced mind is: Does the Bill carry out the intentions laid down in the Preamble? I have no doubt myself, after careful examination, that it does. Since this Bill will not only provide light and power, work and employment in Scotland, but will help also the development of our electrical trade in this country by giving us demonstration plants. I beg the House to give this Bill a Third Reading.
  Mr. HANNON: I am sure the House will have listened with much gratification to the interesting speech made by the hon. Gentleman. One of the main objects of this Bill is to enable an enterprising body of gentlemen to organise in Scotland hydro-electric power stations, in the construction of which a large amount of highly technical machinery will be required. The construction of this machinery under the powers which this Bill will confer will mean immediately the placing of orders which will give employment to a large number of skilled men. It has been frequently said in this House, on Debates on the unemployment problem, that one of the saddest things in our

  2873
  present-day economic life is the exodus from our country of highly skilled and highly trained artisans, and it is impossible to—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I want to submit that in view of the Deputy-Speaker's earlier ruling that only the Clauses in the Bill should be discussed, that it is not in order for the hon. Member to discuss the general principle of the electrical supply in Scotland on the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, I think it is not. It is not in order to discuss general principles on the Third Reading of a Private Bill.
  Mr. HANNON: I submit with great respect that in the Clauses of this Bill provision is made for the construction of a hydro-electrical power station on the Clyde in Lanarkshire. I am submitting that the erection of this station in accordance with the powers conferred on the promoters of this Bill will enable a contract of considerable dimensions for machinery to be placed which will give employment to a large number of skilled British artisans. I submit, Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my hon. Friend opposite, that that is particularly germane to the substance of this Bill. It has been contended by the hon. Member who opposed this Measure on the other side of the House, that the promoters of this scheme would be free to deal at their own sweet will with the fascinating landscape in that part of Lanarkshire. But within the confines of this Bill, the promoters are cribbed and cabined by all sorts of restrictions imposed by my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland and, indeed, it is hardly possible to conceive any opening through which the promoters of this Measure or the company responsible for administering the provisions of this Bill, can take many measures for considering the aesthetics of the landscape, so closetted are they within the rigid restrictions laid down by the Measure itself. I submit that the whole case made on the other side of the House by hon. Gentlemen who for reasons of their own are opposing all these Bills—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—for reasons of their own, I am perfectly entitled to say so.
  Mr. MAXTON: Do you want us to support it without reasons?
  Mr. HANNON: I have not heard one single argument arising out of the text of the Bill itself that would justify a single vote being given against it in this House. With regard to this danger to the landscape in Scotland, you have the most wretched conditions laid down as to the limits within which a company is confined in interfering with the scenery. I do not think that anybody would suggest that, in view of the constant reference either to the Minister of Transport or to the Secretary of Scotland, both hon. Gentlemen having the highest conception of the aesthetic quality of the landscape in the country concerned, that a single violation of the beauties of the country, as suggested by my hon. Friend, will take place. Under this Measure it is clearly demonstrated that a considerable amount of employment will be found for a considerable number of people, and also that a portion of the Clyde stream now going to waste will be turned to a highly useful and practical purpose to supplement the supply of cheap electricity in that country. And it has been shown also that this company, working in conjunction with the company, the Third Reading of whose Bill the House gave last night, will set up in that part of Scotland, in that interesting and attractive county of Lanarkshire to which this House owes so much indeed in the splendid intelligence which it has provided for us on the other side—
  Mr. MAXTON: There is not much over there!
  Mr. HANNON:—will contribute to the spread of power and the provision of light. There are hundreds of small industries in that part of Scotland which can be materially assisted if electrical power can be provided for them, and the other day—and it all arises out of this Bill—the Chancellor of the Exchequer emphasised the importance of developing electrical supply in the rural districts. Here you have a Measure specially designed to give effect to that very suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, I think the House would be doing well to at once give a Third Reading to a Measure which enables this to be done.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 114.

  Division No. 193.]

  AYES.

  [9.59 p.m.

  Ackroyd, T. R.

  Franklin, L. B.

  Owen, Major G.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

  Gates, Percy

  Perkins, Colonel E K.

  Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Perring, William George

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Gorman, William

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Gosling, Harry

  Pilkington, R. R.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Raffety, F. W.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Raine, W.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Rathbone, Hugh H.

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Becker, Harry

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

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Rea, W. Russell

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Remer, J. R.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Harland, A.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bonwick, A.

  Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

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

  Bourne, Robert Croft

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Robertson, T. A.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Hillary, A. E.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

  Royle, C.

  Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

  Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

  Rudkin, Lieut-Colonel C. M. C.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hore-Bellsha, Major Leslie

  Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Burman, J. B.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

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

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kay, Sir R. Newbald

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Kedward, R. M.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Keens, T.

  Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Comyns-Carr, A. S.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Cope, Major William

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Costello, L. W. J.

  Lessing, E.

  Starmer, Sir Charles

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frase

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Loverseed, J. F.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Crittall, V. G.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Macfadyen, E.

  Thornton, Maxwell R.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  McLean, Major A.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Waddington, R.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Maden, H.

  Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)

  Deans, Richard Storry

  Mansel, Sir Courtenay

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Dickie, Captain J. P.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Wells, S. R.

  Dodds, S. R.

  Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

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

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Meller, R. J.

  Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

  Dunn, J. Freeman

  Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Morse, W. E.

  Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

  Elliot, Walter E.

  Moulton, Major Fletcher

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

  Murrell, Frank

  Wragg, Herbert

  Falconer, J.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Ferguson, H.

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

  Finney, V. H.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Foot, Isaac

  Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

  Sir Samuel Chapman and Colonel

  Penry Williams.

  NOES.

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

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hayes, John Henry

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

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Healy, Cahir

  Alstead, R.

  Dickson, T.

  Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Dukes, C.

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

  Attlee, Major Clement R.

  Duncan, C.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Baker, Walter

  Dunnico, H.

  Hudson, J. H.

  Barnes, A.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Isaacs, G. A.

  Batey, Joseph

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Gillett, George M.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

  Jewson, Dorothea

  Bromfield, William

  Greenall, T.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Cape, Thomas

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Groves, T.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)

  Church, Major A. G.

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

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Clarke, A.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lansbury, George

  Cluse, W. S.

  Harbison, Thomas James S.

  Laverack, F. J.

  Cove, W. G.

  Harris, John (Hackney, North)

  Law, A.

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

  Lawson, John James

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Leach, W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Lee, F.

  Potts, John S.

  Stranger, Innes Harold

  Lunn, William

  Purcell, A. A.

  Thurtle, E.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Tout, W. J.

  Mackinder, W.

  Richards, R.

  Viant, S. P.

  March, S.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Maxton, James

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Warne, G. H.

  Middleton, G.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Mills, J. E.

  Scrymgeour, E.

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

  Montague, Frederick

  Scurr, John

  Welsh, J. C.

  Morel, E. D.

  Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Sexton, James

  Whiteley, W.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)

  Muir, John W.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesday)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Nixon, H.

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Windsor, Walter

  Oliver, George Harold

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Wright, W.

  Paling, W.

  Snell, Harry

  Palmer, E. T.

  Spence, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Westwood.

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

  GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Oxford Gaslight and Coke Company, which was presented on the 24th July and published, be approved, with the following modification:
  Clause 33, sub-clause (1), paragraph (b), omit 'as provided by,' and insert 'the lands described in the Second Schedule to this Order and to the extent provided in.'"
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Settle Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 24th July and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Sheffield Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 24th July and published, be approved."—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1919, in respect of the urban district of Stevenage and the parishes of Graveley and Kneb-worth, in the rural district of Hitchm, in the county of Hertford, which was pre-
  2878
  sented on the 23rd day of June, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Westgate-on-Sea and Birchington, in the rural district of the Isle of Thanet, in the county of Kent, which was presented on the 10th day of July, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Marlborough and part of the rural district of Marlborough, both in the county of Wilts, which was presented on the 21st day of July, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Conisbrough, Darfield, Hemsworth, Knottingley, Royston and Tickhill, the rural districts of Doncaster, Kiveton Park, Pontefract, and Thorne, and parts of the rural districts of Barnsley, Rotherham, and Wortley, all in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 23rd day of June, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Ormesby and Marton, in the rural district of Middlesbrough and the parish of Nunthorpe, in the rural district of Stokesley, all in the North

  2879
  Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 10th day of July, 1924, be approved."—[Mr. Gosling.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
  Mr. BARNES: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that it is not 11 o'clock yet, and there is a Bill on the Order Paper in my name, namely, the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill. I take it I am in order in raising that?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Adjournment of the House has been moved.
  Mr. BARNES: I thought I rose before the Adjournment was moved.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member did not catch my eye.
  Mr. B. SMITH: Before the Adjournment is moved, ought not every notice on the Order Paper to be read out? I think we ought to have the right to have them called.
  Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: May I not raise the last Motion on the Order Paper in my name—
  "That the Order [2nd June] that the Elizabeth Fry Refuge and Refuge for the Destitute Bill be committed to a Standing Committee be read and discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
  Mr. HARVEY: I only wish to claim the attention of the House for a moment or two, in order to ask you, Sir, to use your influence on behalf of a matter which interests every Member of the House. We are about to adjourn very shortly. Great numbers of our constituents will be visiting London, and anxious to visit the Houses of Parliament. Under existing arrangements, it will only be possible for them to do that on Saturdays. A great number of people from the country are unable to stay in London on the Saturday, and, in any ease, far more will want to come on other days. I believe if you would be good enough to use your great influence with the Lord Great Chamberlain, it might be possible to arrange that on days of the week other than Saturday
  2880
  access should be granted to the public to visit the Houses of Parliament, and if that were done it would give great satisfaction. Very many thousands of people, many of whom will only be coming to London this summer, will have the one opportunity of their lives to visit this House. I very much hope, therefore, you may see your way to use your influence, and I believe it will be a matter that will receive support from all quarters of the House.
  Sir J. NALL: When I endeavoured to ask a question last week on this subject, I was told it was not a topic which came under any Minister in the House. Therefore I should like to take this opportunity of supporting the request of the hon. Gentleman, that this matter may be placed before the proper authority, in order that the quite unusual number of visitors to the Houses of Parliament may have an opportunity of seeing the Palace of Westminster during the Vacation. I should like to add, that if by any unfortunate chance the House should be sitting after this week, whether, instead of the somewhat unwieldy procession which goes around the House every day now, a similar procedure could be adopted in the morning of every day to that which is followed on Saturdays, that is, that from 10 o'clock in the morning until 1 o'clock in the afternoon, instead of Members being necessary as guides to the parties, the House should be open, and the public able to see the main parts of the Palace, leaving the more private parts available for Members for private use.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Both the matters raised are without my jurisdiction. They are entirely in the hands of the Lord Great Chamberlain. I was approached by some hon. Members on the same matter a few days ago, and I suggested that they should organise a deputation to see the Lord Great Chamberlain on the matter. Hon. Members will appreciate that I ought to be careful not to give an opinion on something that comes under somebody else's authority, but certainly should the Lord Great Chamberlain see fit, I shall have no objection at all. It does not really lie within my province. Perhaps the hon. Members will take that course.
  Mr. BARNES: I should like to crave the indulgence of the House for the pur-

  2881
  pose of explaining the reason why I asked for the Adjournment not to be moved at the present moment. The Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill was carried after a very short debate on its Second Reading by a unanimous vote of the House, without a Division. The Bill subsequently secured a passage through Committee, and it came before this House one Friday some time ago. On that occasion, because it was reached about ten minutes to Four, an Hon. Member on the other side objected on the ground that sufficient consideration had not been given to this Bill, and Members had not had time thoroughly to peruse it. On that objection, I withdrew the Bill that Friday, so as to give Members an opportunity of reconsidering the matter. I wish to submit that this Measure has been before the House for a considerable period. Some Members have put down objections to various points, and I think it is reasonable to state that many Members on the other side who are interested in the passage of this Bill are satisfied with the main provisions, although there are one or two adjustments that might be made by agreement. In view of the fact that this Bill secured the unanimous support of the House on Second Reading, and there was little opposition during the Committee stage, I do appeal to the House to give private Members, who have very seldom an opportunity of getting any proposal that they submit to the House—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Member to proceed to discuss a Bill on the Motion "That the House do now adjourn."
  Mr. B. SMITH: On a point of Order. The time of private Members in this House has been taken up very considerably by the Government ever since the Session commenced. I have had a Bill down since the 2nd June, and on various occasions when there has been a possibility of that Bill being discussed—and it is an important Bill—objection has been taken; but latterly the Government themselves have moved the Adjournment of the House prior to the Bill being called. This is the second occasion on which that has occurred. Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but the point is that I as a private Member have a perfect right to bring anything before the House that fits in with
  2882
  the procedure of the House, but the "usual channels" get to work and break up the night before Eleven o'Clock, when we have been told that there was a possibility of sitting later than the agreed time, and deny to private Members the opportunity of having matters discussed that are vital to industry, and in regard to which hon. Members opposite can show some sympathy, such, for instance, as the question of casual labour in the docks, where the men are practically starving. I protest that the Government are wilfully taking the time of those private Members and putting obstruction in the way of their bringing in legislation on behalf of the people.
  Mr. CLYNES: May I be allowed to say, on this Motion, that the point at which the Adjournment Motion was moved was the point, which we had reached, at which it was understood that such a Motion would be move? These matters are necessarily matters of arrangement between the representatives of the different parties in the House, and we can seldom estimate quite precisely the moment when the business of the House will be concluded. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) should observe that far in front of the particular Bill to which he refers there is another Bill which, if now the House could proceed with it, would undoubtedly take the time up to eleven o'clock and long after, if it could be done. Personally, I should have no objection, if it could be done, to the Motion for the Adjournment being withdrawn and lo the different Bills on the Paper being called, but I am certain that strong objection would be raised in other quarters of the House. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe will not conclude that the Government are at fault in the very ordinary course which they are taking.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I want, Mr. Speaker, to take your opinion as to whether it is not open to us, on the Motion for Adjournment, to appeal to the Government not to proceed with it. The Deputy-Leader of the House has told us that they have come to the end of Government business, and has spoken of arrangements which were made through the usual channels; but those arrangements concern Government Orders, and do not corcern at all

  2883
  the Bills which private Members have upon the Paper; and, under our present rules in regard to private Members' Bills, so few are the opportunities of private Members to pass their Bills that it does seem very hard that, night after night, we find that at Ten o'Clock in the evening Government business has been concluded, and yet we may not use the hour that remains for proceeding with Bills in which private Members are interested.
  I think we have a real ground for complaint that, the Government business having come to and end at about 10 o'clock, we may not proceed with private Members' Bills that are on the Paper. I am myself very much interested in one Bill on the Paper, and, although I do not think that three-quarters of an hour would suffice to dispose of the Welsh Local Option Bill, nevertheless I venture to think that that Bill is at least as important as some of the Government Bills on the Paper, and as, when the matter was previously before the House, the House declined to Closure the Debate on the ground that the Measure had not received sufficient discussion, I suggest that, if we had till 11 o'clock to discuss it, the House would probably now dispose of the Bill, and would not seek refuge in refusing the Closure. When Government business is finished, if there is time available for private Members to get their chance, I do not think the Government ought to take it from us by moving the Adjournment at 10 o'clock.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in a matter of this kind? I know that you are always ready to give us the benefit of your knowledge of procedure. In the case of a Motion of this kind, which seeks to take away the necessary time which could be utilised to advantage up to Eleven o'Clock for the purpose of dealing with those Measures in which we are all so much interested, is there no way in which we can do so? I know that you are prepared to advise one who does not know all the procedure in a matter of this kind. May I appeal to both sides of the House, because, if an agreement has been come to, I am not one of those who would seek even to ask my own Government to break an honourable agreement? May I make this appeal, as I think there is an expressed opinion to that effect both
  2884
  above and below the Gangway on this side, that a discussion be allowed, at least, on the Bill which would be immediately called, and which affects hundreds of thousands of individuals in this country? May I appeal to hon. Members to allow the Government to withdraw the Motion for Adjournment, and allow us to get on with the debate on the Bill which will be called next?
  Sir J. NALL: A private Bill, if no one object, may be allowed to go through at 11 o'clock. That is one thing, but it would be another matter if a Bill—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon, and gallant Gentleman has already spoken once on this question. On the point put to me, of course, it is for the House whether or not it accept this Motion, but I would remind hon. Members that sometimes we get through a great deal more business by agreement than we do in the absence of it.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: In the event of there being no agreement, should I be in order in moving the Closure to get a Division on the action of the Government in moving the Adjournment?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would be in order in moving the Closure, but it is in my discretion to accept it or not.
  Mr. FOOT: I do not understand that there could have been between the parties in the House any agreement that excludes the private Member. I entirely support what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, that any arrangement is an arrangement as to Government orders, and what we complain of is that this is not merely done to-night but that again and again, by reason of moving the Adjournment, we have been deprived of the very little time that is given to private Members. It is all very well to speak of the traditions of this House as we do and to show visitors over the House. I have sat in the Library on occasions and have heard Members showing visitors with great pride the page in our Manuscript Journal which James I tore out, upon which the Protestation was entered. I think it would do Members of the Government good to see what was entered upon that Protestation. It insisted not only upon the rights of the House, but again and again upon the

  2885
  rights of every Member of this House, and that is a principle which, is being forgotten. We have to assert, if we can, that every Member of this House has his rights as much as the Government have, and I think for the Government to come to the conclusion that when their business is ended the work of the House is finished is something altogether inconsistent with tradition, and, seeing that the opportunities are so limited, if occasionally we get a quarter or half an hour to discuss some Bill so that a private Member may be able to carry out what is a part of his constitutional right of introducing legislation and securing the discussion of legislation, that small opportunity ought not to be taken from us, and I hope discussion will bring the Government into a different frame of mind, so that in the Autumn Session, if an opportunity should arise, private Members may have full use of that opportunity.
  Colonel GRETTON: I think hon. Members opposite are really rather unreasonable. Cases are constantly occurring when business ends sooner than was expected. Why does it end? Because the Government have made an arrangement that they are to take certain business and progress is facilitated and the House comes to an end of the task which the Government has set it, private Members get up and claim that, as there has been an easy passage for the Government proposals, they should be in a position, unexpectedly and without any warning to the general body of Members, to proceed with various Bills, some of which are of a highly controversial character.
  Mr. FOOT: They have been on the Order Paper for weeks.
  Colonel GRETTON: That may be, but there is no reason why controversial private Bills should be taken in this way. The Government challenges the Opposition with highly controversial Measures, which have to be fought on their merits. There is also a vast amount of necessary business to be got through, whatever Government is in power, such as the kind of business that has been before the House to-night. It is entirely in accordance with precedence that that business should be facilitated and not fractiously opposed. If hon. Members had announced
  2886
  that if the Motion for the Adjournment was moved at an early hour they would move their controversial Bills, do they imagine for a moment that the Government would have got through their business so easily? The hour of Eleven would have struck before those hon. Members would have been on their feet making their proposals. I submit that the Adjournment should be carried, and that hon. Members are not treating the House-fairly when they advocate these highly controversial proposals, without notice, and behind the backs of the vast majority of Members of the House, who knew what was the business before the House tonight and did not expect controversial private Measures to be brought forward.
  Mr. J. JONES: I wish the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) had been as dear as his beer. I hope he will give me something for that advertisement. On the Motion for the Adjournment we have a right to wander all over the world, and I am going to wander. I sometimes wonder where I am. I would ask the House seriously to consider the situation in which the private Member finds himself. Bargains are made behind our backs, and we do not get a look in. We are sold like lambs at Smithfield. Whatever we want to raise and whatever we want to do, it is all arranged by these nice kind gentlemen. Some of us are not going to stick it much longer. I want to say, quite frankly, that I am a Social Democrat, a Socialist in economics and a Democrat in politics. Some of you do not know the meaning of it. If you did you would have to go to school again, but we want to know exactly where some of us are. I am prepared to meet the best you have got on any platform in Great Britain, and to describe our position. We know where we are. Some of our leaders do not know where they are. You can say what you like about it, but it is true. We have not fought all our lives since we were boys to put people into position. We have fought to bring about a better time for the people. I am not going back to Silvertown to make apologies. I want to see the people have a better chance that they have had before. A seat in Parliament does not matter a tinker's curse.
  Viscount CURZON: Why did you come here?
  Mr. JONES: I came here because I believed that I was going to do good for the people whom I represent. That is more than you believe.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the Noble Lord not to interrupt. The hon. Member will please address me, and not the Noble Lord.
  Mr. JONES: I would rather address you, Sir, than address him, because, if there is any nobility in life, you are noble. He is noble by accident. I shall never be noble, but so far as some of us on these benches are concerned, we are not going always to be treated as back numbers or back benchers. We want our rights to be asserted. Parliament was established by the rights of private Members. The men who fought the battle for Parliamentary government were private Members. It was not done by arrangement between the Front Benches, but by the people sending their men here to represent them, and we have a right not to be side tracked, not to be sent abroad, not to be told that we can only do this, and can only do that. I, for one, am going to back up my comrades in the fight we shall have to get equal rights with the people who sit on the Front Benches.
  Mr. BARNES rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. JONES: We understand diplomacy. We know exactly what happens, and those who denounce secret diplomacy when other parties are in power are most capable of it themselves. I am not going to be any party to it, and we are not going to be a party to it. Some of us here are fighting for the rights of the common people.
  Viscount CURZON: Hear, hear!
  Mr. SPEAKER: I shall not have these interruptions.
  Viscount CURZON: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish, with the leave of the House, to raise an issue which may be deemed controversial. It is a question of some importance, and one to which I have been giving some thought.
  2888
  It is in relation to the situation in connection with Ireland. We are in this peculiar position. We are faced with a situation in Ireland to-day which I do not want to discuss. A great deal can be said, I suppose, for both positions. The point which I want to raise is this. On Thursday a statement is to be made in this House in connection with that situation, and that statement will give us, I hope, some idea as to what steps the Free State and the Government of Northern Ireland are prepared to take. This is the situation to which I want the Leader of the House to address himself either to-night or to-morrow. If we agree not to go ahead with the Bill, what is likely to happen is that in the Southern part of Ireland a serious situation will arise and possibly life will be lost. On the other hand, in a situation of that kind the North may decide to act. I am not going to blame them for it; they will do what they think right. If the Government do not take a decided step between now and the adjournment of the House, I fear that forces may be let loose and that the House ought to meet to consider the matter. I raise this question with due deference, not expecting an answer at the moment, but in order that to-morrow my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Leader of the House may make a statement at the end of Questions and tell us whether the House is to be allowed to discuss the situation and to take whatever steps it cares to take. I raise the question in no hostile spirit to the Front Bench, but in the hope that on the position with which I am concerned—the welfare of this country and certain Colonies attached to this country—the right hon. Gentleman will give an answer.
  Mr. BARNES rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. CLYNES: If I may say so, with all respect, the Government is in no need of reminders of the serious Irish situation, but, obviously, I cannot anticipate any statement which may be made on the Motion for the Adjourment on Thursday. That statement has already been promised, and it will be made at a time when hon. Members can follow it up by discussion. For the moment, that is all I can say.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: That does not meet my point. If the statement is made on the Adjournment Motion, nobody can raise the issue about which I am asking—the issue that we may be faced with a form of civil war in Ireland. I would not have raised the matter to-night if I could do so on Thursday. Some of us may think that the Government ought to deal with it before the House adjourns. We cannot raise it if the statement is made on the Adjournment Debate. I am asking that the Lord Privy Seal should consider making the statement at a time when we raise the issue.
  Mr. BARNES: When I raised my original question on the rights of private Members you stated, Mr. Speaker, that the House should decide. If the House is to decide, it is only fair that a private Member should have the right to get the vote of the House, instead of three-quarters of an hour being spent in a general discussion. The original point was the rights of private Members.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is challenging my discretion.
  Mr. FERGUSON: All the anxiety on the other side of the House is due to a fear on the part of some hon. Members opposite that the House may adjourn before they can grant what the Irish Free State wants. It is the party opposite who are causing all the trouble.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I pointed out to the hon. Member to-day, or tried to do so, that it is grossly disorderly for him to fling his arms across the House. I shall not be able to listen to him until he gets rid of that habit.
  Mr. B. SMITH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is prepared to come to a decision.
  Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 72.

  Division No. 194.]

  AYES.

  [10.43 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Dukes, C.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Duncan, C.

  March, S.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Dunn, J. Freeman

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W.(Glas.C)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Ammon, Charles George

  Edwards, John H.(Accrington)

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Egan, W. H.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Elliot, Walter E.

  Morse, W. E.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Ferguson, H.

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

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Gardner, B. W, (West Ham, Upton)

  Nicholson, O.(Westminster)

  Becker, Harry

  Gates, Percy

  Owen, Major G.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Paling, w.

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

  Gillett, George M.

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Gosling, Harry

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Bonwick, A.

  Greene, W.P. Crawford

  Perring, William George

  Bourne, Robert Croft

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Potts, John S.

  Bowyer, Capt. G.E.W.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Raffety, F. W.

  Briscoe, Captain Richard George

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Bromfield, William

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Harland, A.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Rea, W. Russell

  Burman, J. B.

  Harvey, C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Butler, sir Geoffrey

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Remer, J, R.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Cape, Thomas

  Hillary, A. E.

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

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Church, Major A. G.

  Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

  Royle, C.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

  Russell, Alexander West(Tynemouth)

  Cope, Major William

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Costello, L. W. J.

  Keens, T.

  Savery, S. S.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Scurr, John

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Sexton, James

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Laverack, F. J.

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

  Davies, Rhys John(Westhoughton)

  Leach, W.

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Lumley, L. R.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Deans, Richard Storry

  Lyle, Sir Leonard

  Somerville, A. A.(Windsor)

  Dickie, Captain J. P.

  McLean, Major A.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Dodds, S. R.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sykes, Major-Gen, sir Frederick H.

  Thornton, Maxwell R.

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

  Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

  Thurtle, E.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

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

  Tout, W. J.

  Wells, S. R.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col K. P.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Viant, S. P.

  Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Waddington, R.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Warne.

  NOES.

  Ackroyd, T. R.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Rathbone, Hugh R.

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

  Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

  Richardson, R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hudson, J. H.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Isaacs, G. A.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

  Seely, H. M (Norfolk, Eastern)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jewson, Dorothea

  Short, Alfred (Wednesday)

  Brown, A. E.(Warwick, Rugby)

  Johnston, Thomas (Stlrling)

  Spence, R.

  Clarke, A.

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

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

  Comyns-Carr, A. S.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Crittall, V. G.

  Kay, Sir R. Newbald

  Starmer, Sir Charles

  Dickson, T.

  Lansbury, George

  Stephen, Campbell

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

  Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dunnico, H.

  Lessing, E.

  Stranger, Innes Harold

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

  Loverseed, J. F.

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

  Finney, V.H.

  Mackinder, W.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Foot, Isaac

  Maden, H.

  Watson, W. M.(Dunfermline)

  Gorman, William

  Mansel, Sir Courtenay

  Westwood, J.

  Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

  Middleton, G.

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mills, J. E.

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

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Montague, Frederick

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Harris, John (Hackney, North)

  Moulton, Major Fletcher

  Windsor, Walter

  Harris, Percy A.

  Murrell, Frank

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Nixon, H.

  Wright, W.

  Hastings, Somerville(Reading)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Haycock, A. W.

  Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hayes, John Henry

  Palmer, E. T.

  Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.

  Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  QUEEN ELIZABETH (WRITERS).
  QUEEN ELIZABETH (WRITERS).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  ADMIRALTY (ADMINISTRATIVE CLASS).
  ADMIRALTY (ADMINISTRATIVE CLASS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  BANDS (PRIVATE ENGAGEMENTS).
  BANDS (PRIVATE ENGAGEMENTS).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WAGES AND DISCHARGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WAGES AND DISCHARGES).
  PENSIONERS (RE-ENLISTMENT).
  PENSIONERS (RE-ENLISTMENT).
  GOVERNMENT MUNITION FACTORIES.
  GOVERNMENT MUNITION FACTORIES.
  WOOLWICH ACADEMY AND SANDHURST COLLEGE (CANDIDATES).
  WOOLWICH ACADEMY AND SANDHURST COLLEGE (CANDIDATES).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  FINAL AWARD (MR. F. C. BELLINGER).
  FINAL AWARD (MR. F. C. BELLINGER).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DESERTED WIVES AND CHILDREN.
  DESERTED WIVES AND CHILDREN.
SCOTLAND.
  ANNIESLAND AND DUNTOCHER CONTRACTS (WAGES DISPUTE).
  ANNIESLAND AND DUNTOCHER CONTRACTS (WAGES DISPUTE).
  BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.
  BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.
  REPARATION TIMBER (SALES).
  REPARATION TIMBER (SALES).
  FOOD PRICES.
  FOOD PRICES.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  SIBERIAN TINNED SALMON (LABELS).
  SIBERIAN TINNED SALMON (LABELS).
  FOREIGN TARIFFS.
  FOREIGN TARIFFS.
  TOBACCO COMPANIES (PROFITS).
  TOBACCO COMPANIES (PROFITS).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACTS.
  PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACTS.
TRANSPORT.
  TRACKLESS TROLLEY CARS.
  TRACKLESS TROLLEY CARS.
  GOVERNMENT ROAD PROGRAMME.
  GOVERNMENT ROAD PROGRAMME.
  RAMSGATE HARBOUR.
  RAMSGATE HARBOUR.
  MOTOR VEHICLES (REFLECTORS).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (REFLECTORS).
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
  CONVICTION AT ST. ALBANS (JAMES KIDMAN).
  CONVICTION AT ST. ALBANS (JAMES KIDMAN).
  EXPLOSION, SLADES GREEN.
  EXPLOSION, SLADES GREEN.
  NATURALISED ALIEN (ALLEGED TREASON).
  NATURALISED ALIEN (ALLEGED TREASON).
  ST. GEORGE'S SCHOOLS, RAMSGATE.
  ST. GEORGE'S SCHOOLS, RAMSGATE.
  INDIA (BONNA ROAD INCIDENT).
  INDIA (BONNA ROAD INCIDENT).
  HOUSING SUBSIDY AGRICULTURAL PAIRISHES).
  HOUSING SUBSIDY AGRICULTURAL PAIRISHES).
  BURLEY LODGE FARM.
  BURLEY LODGE FARM.
POST OFFICE.
  COST-OF-LIVING BONUS.
  COST-OF-LIVING BONUS.
  RURAL SERVICES, WESTERN ISLES.
  RURAL SERVICES, WESTERN ISLES.
  COCKERMOUTH AND MARYPORT OFFICES.
  COCKERMOUTH AND MARYPORT OFFICES.
  MRS. MARGUERITE HARRISON.
  MRS. MARGUERITE HARRISON.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE:My Lords, I beg leave to introduce the Glasgow Corporation Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a— (Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR):My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which I have given Notice relating to the order of to-day's business.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with to allow the remaining stages of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill to be taken, and to allow those stages of that Bill, and the consideration of the Amendments to the London Traffic Bill, and the Committee Stage of the Agricultural Wages Bill, in that order, to have precedence of the other Orders of the Day.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE):My Lords, in rising to move

351
that this Report be now received it may be convenient to the House if I say a few preliminary words before we proceed to consideration of the further detailed Amendments. I have done my very best to bring about harmony between the two Houses and, though there are certain points upon which there is difference of opinion, I shall be in a position to accept the Amendments which are upon the Paper with the exception of the first, the amendment to Clause 2 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, as to which I shall have something to say when the Amendment is moved.
Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2:
Increased Government contributions in case of houses which are subject to special conditions.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a house shall be deemed to be situated in an agricultural parish if at the beginning of the financial year in which the proposal for the provision of the house is approved by the Minister—

(a) the net annual value of the agricultural land in the parish in which the house is situated, as shown in the county rate basis then in force, exceeds twenty-five per cent, of the total net annual value of that parish as shown in the same basis (the value of all property in the occupation of the Crown being taken into account); and

(5) Where, in pursuance of proposals approved by the Minister under this Act, houses are provided by a metropolitan borough council, the London County Council may, in respect of any such house which is subject to special conditions, supplement any contribution made by the Minister in respect of such house to an extent not exceeding two pounds five shillings, payable annually for a period not exceeding forty years, and for the purposes of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Section three of this Act the amount of any such supplemental contribution shall be treated as if it were part of the expenses borne by the local rate in the borough.
LORD STRACHIEmoved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after " parish," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "excluding railways." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to draw attention to the fact that if you do
352
not exclude railways the effect in some small agricultural parishes would be that they would not get the extra subsidy which is provided under the Bill for building houses. I will give one instance, that of Easenhall, a small agricultural parish with a rateable value on agricultural land of £957, railway rateable value, £3,552, and on other property of £900. That makes a total of £5,409, out of which agricultural land accounts for only £957. I imagined that the question was one to which the noble and learned Viscount would object on the ground of privilege, and I should not have raised it but for the fact that I had been asked by members of the House of Commons to mention it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, after (" parish ") insert ("excluding railways").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, this Amendment gives rise to considerable difficulties, administrative as well as legal. The county basis which is the foundation of the procedure, makes no provision for excluding railways. One reason is this: If you exclude railways, why not canals and other things? The truth is that the whole matter is changed by the Agricultural Rates Act of 1923. What is done there is to divide the county basis, as it is called, into two parts, one relating to agricultural and the other to non-agricultural matters. To take out the railways would involve a calculation for which there is no machinery, and it is plain that waterworks, canals and other activities should be on the same basis. I am, therefore, advised that the Amendment is not practicable, and I ask my noble friend not to press it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER:My Lords, I understand that in the case of Scotland, in certain Scottish rural parishes, where the rateable value is largely increased by railways, waterworks or similar undertakings, they will receive the extra grant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I forgot that, and I am obliged to the noble Earl for reminding me. We have, in fact, disposed of this question by what we did on the Scottish clause.
LORD STRACHIE:I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMmoved, in subsection (5), to insert " the Common Council of the City of London or by " after " a metropolitan borough council." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I am told that the noble and learned Viscount is going to accept this Amendment, I content myself with moving it and with congratulating the Lord Chancellor upon doing the right thing.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, after (" by ") insert (" the Common Council of the City of London or by ").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, after the third (" the ") insert (" City or ").— (Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Special conditions.
3.— (1) Houses provided by a local authority themselves shall be deemed to be subject to special conditions if the local authority undertake, in accordance with rules made by the Minister and approved by the- Treasury, that the following conditions will be complied with in relation to the houses: —
(a) that, subject to the following conditions, the houses shall be let by the local authority for occupation to tenants who intend to reside therein;
(c) that if the local authority desire to sell or (save by such lettings as aforesaid) otherwise dispose of the houses the sale or disposal shall not be effected except upon and subject to such reasonable stipulations as the Minister thinks proper, including, if the Minister thinks fit, stipulations for the reduction of the amount or the curtailment of the duration of any contribution payable by the Minister in respect of the house, or for both reduction and curtailment, but so nevertheless that the contribution in respect of any house sold before the expiration of a period of twenty years from the date when that contribution first became payable shall not be reduced by more than three pounds or, in the case of a house in an agricultural parish, by more than six pounds ten shillings, and the duration thereof shall not be curtailed by more than twenty years;
(2) Houses provided by a society, body of trustees or company within the meaning of
354
Section three of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, and houses, the construction of which is promoted by a local authority in accordance with Section two of the said Act, as amended by this Act, shall be deemed to be subject to special conditions if the society, body of trustees or company, in the case of the houses provided by them, and the local authority in the case of the other houses undertake, in accordance with rules made by the Minister and approved by the Treasury, that the following conditions will be complied with in relation to the houses—
(a) that the houses shall be let for occupation to tenants who intend to reside therein;
(c) that no house shall be sold or (save by such lettings as aforesaid) otherwise disposed of except with the consent of the Minister, which may be absolute or subject to such stipulations as the Minister thinks proper, Including, if the Minister thinks fit, stipulations for the reduction of the amount or the curtailment of the duration of any contribution payable by the Minister in respect of the house, or for both redaction and curtailment, but so nevertheless that the contribution in respect of any house sold before the expiration of a period of twenty years from the date when that contribution first became payable shall not be reduced by more than three pounds, or in the case of a house in an agricultural parish by more than six pounds ten shillings, and the duration thereof shall not be curtaailed by more than twenty years;
LORD STRACHIEmoved in subsection (1) (a), after " tenants," to insert " who are members of the working classes, and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a similar Amendment to that which I moved yesterday when I was told that it was not in the proper place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I understand that the noble and learned Viscount will accept this Amendment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:Yes.
LORD STRACHIE:Then it does not require very much argument from me. This Bill is intended for the benefit of the working classes, and my Amendment is designed to secure that its advantages shall not be shared by those for whom it is not intended. I do not think that these houses should be let as week-end properties, or to sanitary inspectors or

355
other people -whom this Bill is not intended to benefit. I want to limit its advantages to the working classes.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 41, after ("tenants ") insert (" who are members of the working classes, and ").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I am very glad to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:My Lords, I have three Amendments on the Paper to which I understand the Lord Chancellor is prepared to agree.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 14, leave out (" reasonable ")
Page 5, line 15, after (" stipulations ") insert (" if any ")
Page 5, line 16, leave out (" including if the Minister thinks fit, stipulations ").— (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STRACHIEmoved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after " tenants," to insert " who are members of the working classes, and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is similar to that which has already been accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, after (" tenants ") insert (" who are members of the working classes, and ").—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:My Lords, I understand that the Lord Chancellor accepts the remaining Amendment to this clause, which stands in my name, and I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, after (" such ") insert (" reasonable ").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
Agreements between London County Council and metropolitan borough councils.
14.—(1) The London County Council and any metropolitan borough council may enter into agreements by which the metropolitan borough council may contribute such amounts as may be agreed, subject to the provisions of this Act, towards the provision of houses by the county council within or without the county to meet any special needs of any such metropolitan borough
356
council, and for the purposes of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section three of this Act the amount of any such contribution shall be treated as if it were part of the expenses borne by the county rate.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:My Lords, I beg to move three consequential Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 18, after ("and") insert (" the Common Council or ")
Page 12, line 20, after ("the") insert (" Common Council or the ")
Page 12, line 24, after (" of ") insert (" the Common Council or ").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment to a Lords Amendment and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment to a Lords Amendment and the Commons Reasons for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered. I want to say one word before we come to these specific matters which, of course, will be dealt with in turn. There are really two points on which the Commons disagree with the Amendments made in this House, but the fact of disagreement on those two points really puts rather in the background the large number of Amendments which the Commons have accepted as introduced in this House— not only drafting Amendments, which are considerable in number, but substantial matters on which your Lordships insisted that the power of the Minister should be curtailed in certain directions in favour of the authorities. Those Amendments have all been accepted, and we will hope and believe that they are all improvements in the Bill as sent up to this House. It is really only on two points that there is disagreement, and I will leave them over until they actually arise. One relates to the tramway and tramway car point, and the other is as to the date to

357
which the Bill is to endure, whether 1927 or 1930. The other is a mere drafting matter.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment and Reasons be now considered.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient for me to say, first with regard to the speech just delivered, that I think the noble Lord is right in calling the attention of your Lordships to the very large number of points on which the House of Commons have thought well to agree with your Lordships in the Amendments you introduced into this Bill. It is true that a great attempt was made in this House to liberate the independence of the local authorities who are called upon to appoint representatives on the Advisory Committee, and much pains were taken also to see that the additional members should not have control over the most contentious part of the duties of the Advisory Committee. All those Amendments have been accepted by the House of Commons, but there remain two Amendments of importance which they have not accepted. I suppose we must be content if we do not get everything we want. Therefore, we must not be too eager to insist upon a number of things upon which the House of Commons have not seen fit to agree with us. After all, compromise is the very essence of public life, and I suppose we must accept the situation in that spirit.
As regards the time Amendment, I confess that I do not attribute so much importance to it as some of my noble friends have done. My belief is that at the end of the three years this Act will find a resting place in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, where it will continue for a great many years That has been what the experience of a considerable public life has taught me and with whatever care a limit of time is inserted in a Bill of this description, when that limited time comes to an end a hurried Government, at the end of the Session, can think of nothing better to do than put the Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. As regards the tramway Amendment, undoubtedly it is an Amendment of very considerable importance, and it is, I confess, with very great reluctance that I see the last of that
358
Amendment. It appears to me that it was dictated by not only a sense of symmetry but also by a sense of equity and justice as well, and I very much regret that the Commons have not seen their way to accept it.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU:My Lords, I regret that on this occasion I cannot agree with what the noble Marquess has said. I have made efforts this morning, at a meeting of the parties interested, to get them to see the point in the same way as the noble Marquess, but what is the position? It is that we are going to put tramways in a favourable position as regards pedestrians and every other kind of vehicle. I can see no reason for that and, although I regret it, I must voice the opinion of those interested to whom I have referred, and I cannot agree to accept the Commons Amendment on this point.
LORD PARMOOR:That matter will come up for discussion when that special Amendment is dealt with, and I ask your Lordships now to allow the House to come to the consideration of the Commons Reasons.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 126.]
Page 13, line 25, after (" omnibus ") insert (" trolley vehicle or tramway car ")
Page 13, line 30, after (" omnibuses ") insert (" trolley vehicles or tramway cars ")
Page 13, line 39, after (" omnibuses ") insert (" trolley vehicles or tramway cars ")
Page 13, line 43, after (" omnibuses ") insert (" trolley vehicles or tramway cars ").
Page 14, line 33, at end insert (" trolley vehicles or tramway cars ").
The Commons disagree with these Amendments:
Because they consider that the provisions of the Bill in relation to omnibuses cannot properly be extended to tramways.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist on the Amendments on pages 13 and 14. I only want to say a few words because, as the noble Lord has pointed out, this matter has been considerably discussed I think that what I will call the two sides are pretty clear. On the one side, most of us would desire in a Traffic Bill to bring

359
in the question of tramways and tramcars, because undoubtedly to a considerable extent and in certain districts, they do add to the obstruction of the traffic. That is one side. I think, however, it is impossible to put out of sight the other side of the question, which was specially emphasised when this matter went back to the House of Commons. The first point which was emphasised is that you ought to draw a distinction between the tramway companies—they are really at the present time practically the local authorities—in London, the London County Council, who have certain statutory rights of user of the streets, and the omnibuses, which are the main matter we are dealing with in these clauses.
Surely it is right for two reasons. A very large amount of money has been invested through the local authorities in London, and elsewhere, on the construction of these tramway lines. The amount has been stated, in the case of the London County Council, to be not far short of £20,000,000. Supposing you were to put these tramways and tramcars in the same position as omnibuses, it would lead to this result—that it would be quite possible in the interests of traffic for Regulations to be made, under the terms of this Bill, which would even go so far as to prevent the tramway company or authority from using the tramway lines on which, under statutory authority, they have made very large expenditure indeed. I have pointed out before that I think it is wrong in principle—this view was maintained in the other place—to deal with bodies who have these statutory rights in the same way as omnibuses, which have no statutory rights or monopoly, or anything of the kind. If, in a Bill of this kind, you are really going to interfere with statutory rights it will have far-reaching effects. It must be remembered that railway companies have not, in a certain sense, so large a statutory right as the tramway companies, because others have a right to run over their lines although it is not exercised, whereas in the case of tramways they have their lines to themselves and no other vehicles are able to use those lines.
I am not going to discuss the question of rights and wrongs, but ought we, in a Bill of this kind, to put statutory rights on the same footing as that on
360
which an omnibus runs along the street? I think quite the contrary. Immediately you interfere with statutory rights of this kind the question of compensation arises, and this Traffic Bill is not founded upon any principle of this sort at all. It is founded upon the principle of the regulation of traffic. It is not founded on the principle of interfering with the business, which is a tramway business carried on under certain statutory rights conferred by Parliament. That is the view which the other House took, and, for my own part, I am glad that they did. On the other hand, I should very much regret if your Lordships instituted a precedent in the other direction, particularly in relation to traffic of this kind. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, who has interested himself much in this matter, will be able to appreciate this point of view, and that your Lordships will not insist on these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:My Lords, as I understand it, the ostensible object of this Bill is to avoid the traffic congestion which has occurred in the streets of London. Now, what is one of the principal causes of that congestion? It is the tramways. And yet the tramways are to be left out of the Bill, and thus to a very great extent you will nullify any chance of success that the Bill may have. The noble and learned Lord has advanced two reasons. One is that the tramway companies and the London County Council have spent large sums of money on tramways. The London General Omnibus Company and the other omnibus companies have also spent large sums of money on their omnibuses. They are to be regulated, but the London County Council is not. I venture to say that the argument of the noble and learned Lord on the ground of expense falls to the ground. What is in his other argument? That there are statutory rights. I am not learned in the law, as is the noble and learned Lord, but I think there are no statutory rights. The London County Council paid nothing for putting their lines down on the streets. All that happened was that the tramways thought

361
that they could make more money by running a vehicle on a set of rails than by running it on ordinary wheels, and they obtained power to lay rails in the streets.
LORD PARMOOR:May I correct the noble Lord? I had to argue this matter from the very start, judicially and otherwise. The company got the statutory powers, and the local authorities took them over, and paid for the rights they obtained.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:I maintain that the companies got no statutory powers. All that the companies got was the right to lay lines in the streets. The noble and learned Lord compared them to the railways. No such comparison can be made. The railways bought the land, and it is their own land; they made the roads, and upon the roads they put a set of lines. It is said that in the old days, going back to 1830, there
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 21, line 6, leave out (" twenty-seven ") and insert (" thirty ")
The Commons disagree with this Amendment:
Because they consider that the operation of the Bill should not be continued for so long a period.
was a right for a private individual to put his carriage on a truck and run it on a railway. That is true, but it has all been done away with years ago. Does the noble and learned Lord put his dogcart on the Great Western Railway Company's luggage van, and go down to Buckinghamshire in that way? Of course he does not. The only result of rejecting these Amendments is to do away with any advantage that the Bill may possibly bring. There is no argument at all for the course the Government are taking. Whatever the House of Commons may do, that is no reason why your Lordships, having taken the common sense, business point of view, should assent to what the Government propose. I shall certainly disagree with the noble Lord's Motion, and I shall have the support of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.
On Question, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 6.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Mayo, E.

Askwith, L.

Midleton, E.

Avebury, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

On slow, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Denman, L.

Devonshire, D.

Digby, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dynevor, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Chaplin, V.

Erskine, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Chelmsford, V.

Gainford, L.

Chilston, V.

Harris, L.

Salisbury, M.

Novar, V.

Hylton, L.

Peel, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Ancaster, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Balfour, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Bradford, E.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Olivier, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Clarendon, E.

Anslow, L.

Stanmore, L. (E. Galloway.)

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Arnold, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kimberley, E.

Ashfield, L.

Templemore, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Thomson, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)

Strachie, L.

LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I move that this House doth not insist on this Amendment, which deals with the period for which the measure is to be in operation.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT PEEL:My Lords, unfortunately I was not able to be present

363
during the early part of this discussion, but I strongly urge your Lordships to retain the Amendment of the six years. I do so for this reason, that this Bill has been put forward as an experiment and an effort to deal with the great problem of London traffic by a new system. As your Lordships further know, this Bill was introduced into another place on a permanent basis and it was only at a very late stage of the Bill that an Amendment was moved, and carried, that the period for which the Bill should run should be three years. It is perfectly true that after the expiration of those three years the Bill might be placed under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and be carried on, possibly, from date to date. But I feel that unless you really give to those people who are to work this Bill some sort of assurance— and it is really a short assurance—that they will have some five or six years during which they can develop their schemes and set in motion the whole of the machinery which will make this work possible, the whole of this measure will be perfectly useless.
May I remind your Lordships that some of these schemes involve a period of two or three years in which they are to be carried out. They involve also very considerable negotiations with the local authorities, and I doubt very much whether any of the local authorities will agree to bear their share of the burdens or to take upon themselves the considerable financial obligations which they have to take, if this Bill is to continue for only three years. I urge, therefore, that the six years should be retained. I urge it really on the principle on which the Bill has been put forward by noble Lords opposite—that it is an experiment. I submit very earnestly to your Lordships that not only will the experiment be a failure, but that it is impossible to carry out this great new experiment in London government unless the authorities who are trying to work the Bill are given a rather longer period than three years. I submit very strongly to your Lordships, therefore, that we ought, if possible, to retain that period of six years, and I trust the Government will not be too obdurate on that point.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Viscount has said, and I bear in mind what was said on a previous occasion. I hope that in
364
not pressing my Motion the matter will not be misunderstood, because the Motion which I moved was in accordance with the views which the Government have stated more than once. I do not think I am in a position to press it to a Division, and, therefore, having heard what the noble Viscount has said, I do not insist on my proposition.
On Question, Motion negatived, and Amendment insisted upon accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I understand that the decision of your Lordships' House has been that the House of Lords adheres to its Amendment?
LORD PARMOOR:It is 1930 instead of 1927.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:That makes it quite clear.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 26, line 8, at end insert:
(" For prescribing the number and maximum size and weight of trailers which may be drawn on streets by vehicles, or vehicles of any particular class or description, and for prescribing that a man should be carried on the trailer, or, where more than one trailer is drawn, on the rear trailer, for signalling to the driver.")
The Commons have amended this Amendment as follows:
In line 3, after (" description ") insert (" either generally or on streets of any class or description ").
LORD PARMOOR:There is only one other matter and that a small one and I will ask your Lordships to accept the Commons Amendments to the Amendment inserted in your Lordships' House; that is to say, after the word " description " to insert " either generally or on streets of any class or description." It is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, but agrees with the Commons in the Amendment made therein.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:It is drafting.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
A Committee appointed to prepare a Reason for the Lords insisting upon an Amendment: the Committee to meet forthwith.
Report from the Committee of the Reason to be offered to the Commons, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the Reason.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Establishment of agricultural wages committees and an Agricultural Wages Board.
(3) The Minister may, if he thinks it expedient, establish one agricultural wages committee for two or more counties instead of a separate committee for each county, and thereupon that committee shall be the agricultural wages committee for the combined counties and those counties shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be one county: Provided that a committee shall not be constituted for two or more counties for which separate committees have been constituted unless those committees agree to such constitution.
(4) The committees first established shall be established for the counties and combined counties specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, but the Minister shall in the case of combined counties on representation duly made by the committee concerned, establish when so requested a committee upon the basis of an administrative county committee.
LORD PARMOORmoved, in subsection (3), after " county," where that word first occurs, to insert " should resolutions in favour of such combination be passed by the representative members of the committees for the several counties." The noble and learned Lord said: I should like to explain in a few words the object of the Amendments that stand in my name. In the first place, the words that I propose include and introduce Amendments which stand in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, and the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. As regards the next Amendment it really is to put into more appropriate and, I think, clearer language what was obviously the intention of the Bill when it passed the other House, and that is that, in the first instance, there should be no further com-
366
bination of counties for the purpose of these agricultural committees, except in respect of the specified cases which are contained in the schedule. When we come to the schedule it will be altered in the same way in order, from a drafting point of view, to be in the same position as the other Amendment.
The second of my Amendments is, I think, very clear. It is:
"(4) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section the Minister shall, on the first establishment of agricultural wages committees, establish one committee for each combination of counties specified in the Second Schedule to this Act.
That is the only case in which there will be combination—
"(5) Where one committee has been established for a combination of counties, the Minister at any time thereafter may, and on the representation of the committee shall, dissolve the committee, and until such committee is dissolved the counties included in the combination shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be one county."
That is intended to make it quite clear that the one county principle is the guiding principle. It is not to be departed from in the first instance, except in the cases specified in the schedule itself, and ultimate changes, if any, shall only be made under the terms of the proposed subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, after (" county ") insert (" should resolutions in favour of such combination be passed by the representative members of the committees for the several counties ").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. In the schedule we get as part of one combination of counties the Scilly Isles. The Scilly Isles are not a county. I should like to know whether that is possible under the Act.
LORD PARMOOR:I think the answer is certainly " Yes," but I can look into it again before we come to the special Scilly Isles Clause. As the noble Earl knows, there is a special Scilly Isles Clause at a later stage. The matter has been considered and I think the Bill is right as it stands, but I will consider it again.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN:As a matter of procedure I ought to tell your Lordships that owing to a misprint in the

367
Marshalled List of Amendments we have allowed this Amendment to be moved, and there is an Amendment which comes before it in the name of Lord Banbury of Southam printed on the other page. The proper procedure is that Lord Banbury's Amendment should be put first.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:If the noble and learned Lord is going to accept Lord Stanhope's Amendment, then I do not propose to move mine.
LORD PARMOOR:That is the intention.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:Then I do not move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN:I am much obliged to Lord Banbury. I will then put first the Amendment on page 1, line 20, after " county " to insert the words as printed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, leave out from (" counties ") to end of clause.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN:I will now put the Amendment to leave out from " counties " to the end of the clause. Does that satisfy Lord Strachie also?
LORD STRACHIE:Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Has the noble Earl saved Lord Stanhope's Amendment to the Amendment?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN:I am going to bring that on when we have to leave out the first words. I will put the Amendment to leave out the words from " counties " to the end of the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN:I suggest that subsection (4) standing in the name of the Lord President ought next to be inserted, and I will put that.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, after (" counties ") insert:
(" (4) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section the Minister shall, on the first establishment of agricultural wages committees, establish one committee for each combination of counties specified in the Second Schedule to this Act.")—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN:Now I will put the proposed new subsection (5), to which the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has an Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After the said subsection (4), insert:
(5) Where one committee has been established for a combination of counties, the Minister at any time thereafter may, and on the representation of the committee shall, dissolve the committee, and until such committee is dissolved the counties included in the combination shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be one county.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL STANHOPEmoved, in the proposed new subsection (5) after " committee " where that word secondly occurs, to insert " by resolution of the representative members." The noble Earl said: I understand that the noble and learned Lord will accept this; therefore I need say nothing about it.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
After (" committee ") at the end of line 3, subsection (5), insert (" by resolution of the representative members "). — (Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR:I accept Lord Stanhope's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN:That covers Amendments in the names of Lord Banbury of Southam, Lord Strachie, and Earl Stanhope.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Duties and powers of agricultural wages committees with respect to minimum rates of wages.
(3) If, on an application in that behalf, a committee are satisfied that any worker employed or desiring to be employed on time work to which a minimum rate fixed under this Act is applicable is so affected by any physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause, that he is incapable of earning that minimum rate the committee shall grant to the worker, a permit exempting, as from the date of the application, or from any later date specified in the permit, the employment of the worker from the provisions of this Act requiring wages to be paid at not less than the minimum rate, subject to such conditions as may be specified in

369
the permit, including if the committee think fit, a condition as to the wages to be paid to the worker; and, while the permit has effect, an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages to the worker at a rate less than the minimum rate if the conditions specified in the permit are complied with.
(4) In fixing minimum rates a committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as in the opinion of the committee are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODmoved, in subsection (3), after " minimum rate," when that phrase secondly occurs, to insert " or that any such worker is working under a profit-sharing or co-partnership scheme which in the opinion of the committee will secure to the worker advantages not less than would accrue to him from the receipt of the minimum rate ". The noble Viscount said: This is a point which I desire to submit to your Lordships' consideration. It is a matter of some importance in principle, and I can only hope your Lordships will agree with me that some such Amendment would be desirable to insert in the Bill, even if it has only a very limited effect, as I think it would have. I do not think the matter was considered in the other House at all. Therefore, it may be a good thing to give the other House an opportunity of considering this point if your Lordships think it right to do so
The object of the Amendment is simply to say that where the labourer and the farmer have agreed on a profit-sharing system which they can satisfy the committee gives to the labourers no less advantage than they would have if a minimum wage were fixed under this Bill, then it should not be necessary in that case, and so long as all parties were satisfied, to fix a minimum wage for that particular case. I venture to submit it to your Lordships for this reason. This Bill proceeds on the theory that there is a divergence of interests between employer and employed, between farmer and labourer, in reference to the amount of wages that the labourer is to receive, and that, that being so owing to a variety of historical causes, it is desirable to establish a tribunal which shall decide as between farmer and
370
labourer what is the minimum rate of wages which the latter ought to be paid. The basis of the Bill, as I understand, is that the minimum wage is to be what may roughly be called a subsistence wage. That is the principle as I read the Bill. It would not be right for me to dispute at this stage the principle on which the Bill is based, and I do not dispute it. For the purposes of this discussion I accept it, but I cannot help feeling that, even assuming the whole case for the Bill and assuming that it is desirable to make such a change as this, it is not really going to be a cure for the evils that exist.
Fundamentally the evil that exists in this industry, and in other industries, is the want of that confidence and mutual trust which ought to exist between employers and employed. If only that were there it would not be necessary to take all these measures to secure what is thought to be justice in favour of the labourer. In other words, this Bill at the best is only a palliation of the evils which exist, and if we really want to do something effective to restore the great industry of agriculture we have to do something quite different from this Bill. We have to aim at bringing all those who are interested in agriculture together and inducing them to work wholeheartedly and unreservedly for the success of the industry in which they are engaged.
I speak in the presence of many noble Lords who are far better qualified to deal with this subject than I am and whose knowledge of it is infinitely better than my own. But I do not think there will be any difference of opinion on the broad principle. The best hope for agriculture lies in the united efforts of the owner, the farmer and the labourer. So far as the owner is concerned he is not affected by this Bill. But I should be very glad if your Lordships could see your way to indicate, even in this Bill, the kind of relation between employer and employed, the farmer and the labourer, that you would like to see exist. It is for that purpose that I desire to move this Amendment—as an indication of the real policy that ought to be pursued, not only in agriculture but in all industries, and particularly in agriculture.
I have heard it said that it is not a practical proposal. That is a view which

371
is sometimes held. I can only give, for what it is worth, my own experience in the matter. When I was in the House of Commons I had the honour of representing a purely agricultural constituency, and being interested in this particular aspect of the question I got together, on one occasion, a committee of twelve or fifteen of the largest and most influential farmers in my constituency. We discussed the possibility of establishing some system of this kind. I am bound to say that there was a considerable difference of opinion and that the majority of the farmers were against establishing any such scheme. They thought it would not work. But there was a minority who strongly approved of it, and one of the ablest men of my acquaintance, a farmer, was good enough to draw up what he conceived to be a practical scheme for putting this principle into operation. It was adopted by one or two of the farmers in that division. It was a very unfortunate moment to attempt any experiment, because it was just on the eve of the great slump in agriculture which made any new devices very difficult to establish. When I last heard of the scheme, which was some little time ago, it was succeeding on two of the farms where it had been adopted.
It is true that there are great difficulties in this matter—difficulties connected with the fact that many farmers do not keep accounts, difficulties connected with the fact that there is a great variability in profits in the farming industry, and also the fact that you may have a profit in one year, but you may have a loss or no profit at all for several years in succession. It is thought this fact would make it very difficult to work a scheme of this kind. I can only submit to your Lordships' that this objection diminishes in force year by year as the population of the country becomes more educated and better able to take long-views as to what its real interests are. In other industries it certainly has been found that the fact that there is no profit one year, or for a series of years, is not a fatal objection to a scheme of this kind, and I doubt whether it would always be a fatal objection in the agricultural industry.
I do not want to dogmatise, far from it. I want to leave the door open, I want to see experiments of this kind
372
tried. If they can succeed they will be of the greatest possible advantage to the industry and to all engaged in it. I ask your Lordships not to do anything more than to say that where such an experiment has been tried with the full approval of all those engaged, labourers and farmers, and where the wages committee is satisfied that such a scheme is going, on the whole, to give greater advantages to the labourers than, or as great advantages as, any scheme of a minimum wage, then, in that case, the operation of this Bill may be suspended until some one under another provision of the Bill, feeling dissatisfied, makes a fresh application for its enforcement. That is the object of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, after (" rate ") insert the said new words.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD PARMOOR:I do not desire to embark on the general proposition stated by the noble Viscount, nor is this the occasion to discuss the scheme with which he has been so long and honourably associated. I was one of those who tried a co-partnership scheme for many years. Ultimately, I am sorry to say, it was dropped with the assent of every one concerned. But that does not mean that these schemes may not be carried out successfully under certain conditions. What I want to say to the noble and learned Viscount is this. I do not think the Amendment can be usefully inserted in the present Bill. What does it mean? If you had a co-partnership scheme under which the wages paid were up to the minimum wage rate, then there would be no objection at all under the Bill as it stands. Therefore, the only occasion on which the Amendment would be of importance would be in the case where a farmer was seeking to pay something less than the minimum rate and the employee was to have some advantage from benefits which he would derive from a co-partnership system.
The noble Viscount has himself pointed out the objections to introducing his proposal under the scheme of the present Bill. What are you to ascertain? And how are you to ascertain it? Does he mean that, if at the end of the year Where less than the minimum wage had been paid and the co-partnership resulted in a failure, this put an end to the matter?

373
It is a very difficult problem, and I agree that you have to consider this question of co-partnership over a series of years. Is it really practicable under these conditions to ask these agricultural wages committees to go through a series of accounts in order to see whether the advantages derived are equivalent to what the worker would have received under the minimum wage principle? I think that is almost impossible I suggest to my noble friend, without wanting on the present occasion to discuss the matter in any detail, that it really would be out of place to introduce this proposal into this Bill. The only case in which it could be fairly worked would be where the minimum wage was guaranteed. In those circumstances it could be done under the terms of the Bill. But I cannot sanction a scheme under which it would take three or four years to tell whether the worker had got proper remuneration. If you begin by giving him proper remuneration, of course it could be done. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:I am entirely in your Lordships' hands in this matter. I do not want to do anything which the majority of your Lordships, or even a considerable minority of your Lordships, think would be out of place in a Bill of this kind. Let me point this out to the Lord President of the Council. You have, far more frequently than some people realise—I have made many inquiries—a considerable number of these schemes actually in operation. Where they are in operation it is easy to ascertain whether they have, in fact, secured to all concerned greater advantages than would be secured by a minimum wage. The advantage of it is this. You have in the Bill a system under which you are helping to array the interests on opposite sides. I avoided and do not wish to be drawn into an acrimonious discussion on the principle of the Bill, but there is that objection. You are going to have the thing settled by controversy, you are going to have a considerable number of inspectors appointed under this Bill, and you are going to have all the trouble and expense of controversial proceedings as a normal part of your procedure. If you can have a system which avoids all that, and which from the outset brings the parties
374
together and induces them to adopt in their joint interests a scheme which will give to both of them a better result than can be secured from this Bill, or at least as good a result, surely it is worth while doing something to secure this.
May I add one further word? It is often said to advocates of this proposal: " How do you propose ever to get it promoted in the industries of the country? " I have always replied, and, I think, rightly, that the time to bring this proposition into effect is when some re-organisation of an industry is being effected by Parliament, and that at such a time a method such as this can be brought forward as an alternative to that reorganisation and can be offered to the parties engaged in that industry as a way of avoiding the controversial proceedings which at present deface our industrial system. So far as I am concerned, I shall be entirely guided by the general impression that prevails in this House. I have no desire to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but I certainly hope that you will insert this Amendment in order to see, at any rate, what the House of Commons think of it.
LORD GAINFORD:I am of opinion that there is a strong case for inserting an Amendment of this kind into the Bill. Having watched a similar arrangement in connection with another of our greatest industries, I am satisfied that a system of co-partnership, or of profit-sharing, does remove from the minds of the workmen a disposition to regard with suspicion many of the operations of the employers. The arguments of the Leader of the House did not seem to me to go against the adoption of this Amendment. The Amendment really will encourage a system of this kind being initiated in agricultural districts, and it is very desirable that a system of co-partnership and profit-sharing should be introduced wherever possible.
The very fact that it is inserted in a Bill will, I think, encourage that idea. I see no difficulty in connection with the payment of the minimum wage, because the minimum wage will be ascertained in each district by the wages committee, and this will be the agricultural labourer's guarantee that he will receive that wage whether a co-partnership scheme brings his wages in any particular year below that minimum or not. I think it is very desirable, considering the fluctuations of

375
agriculture, that the agricultural labourer should have an interest in profit-sharing in years in which there is a profit, and that he should at any rate be guaranteed a minimum wage in the years in which the profit-sharing scheme would not produce a living wage. It is necessary for agricultural labourers to feel that they are guaranteed a minimum wage if they are to do their duty properly by their employers.
LORD PARMOOR:May I refer to one point in the remarks of the noble Lord? Even if this Amendment is not included, the minimum wage does give the guarantee to which he refers, and there will then be occasion for having a co-partnership scheme, if it is thought desirable, in order to give further inducement. But the reason why I opposed this Amendment was that we want to guarantee the minimum wage in all conditions.
LORD ASKWITH:The noble Lord in front of me, Lord Gainford, seems really not to have looked at the place in which it is proposed to insert these words. It is proposed to insert in the subsection which gives exemption to persons suffering from
"physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause "
a provision that exemption shall be given also to persons taking part in a copartnership or profit-sharing scheme—a matter which seems to be entirely out of place here. If this Amendment is inserted it ought to be inserted as a separates clause. There would not be much in a co-partnership or profit-sharing scheme if the individual who takes part in it is not able to earn the minimum wage. I am told by persons who have had to deal with these matters, including the noble Earl on my right, who has been chairman of one of these committees, that there is no question of a minimum wage in co-partnership schemes of this kind, nor has any such exemption been demanded, so that the insertion of this provision in this particular place would clearly be undesirable.
LORD HARRIS:Theoretically I have always been in favour of profit-sharing, in agriculture as well as in other industries, but in agriculture—and I have been farming for many years
376
a great many more acres than I ever wanted to farm—I have never been able to see how it could be practicable. It is very easy to work a partnership scheme when there is a profit, but a partnership scheme is extraordinarily difficult to work when there is no profit and when one of the partners in the scheme puts in an entirely different sort of capital from that which is put in by the other. The labourer puts in his labour—that is one sort of capital—and the farmer puts in his cash, which is quite a different sort of capital. There is another practical difficulty, and I wish the noble Viscount would tell us how to get over it. No farmer's account can be made up for at least fifteen months after the commencement of the year. The county committee is to give the co-partner a wage proportionate to the profit, but the profit cannot be found for fifteen months, so that the labouring co-partner will not be getting it during those fifteen months, and it will have to be made up in bulk at the end of the year. That seems to me to be a practical difficulty which would have to be arranged for by the insertion of words in the clause.
THE EARL OF MAYO:I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, on this Amendment, though I agree with Lord Askwith that this should be a separate clause. I am not going to argue in any way the advantages of co-partnership. I think that co-partnership in anything is very useful and a very good thing. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I would point out that Clause 6 says that
"The Minister may direct an agricultural wages committee to reconsider any minimum rate which has been fixed by them, and thereupon the committee shall reconsider the same and notify to the Minister the result of their reconsideration."
That leaves the Minister with power to direct the agricultural wages committee to reconsider any minimum rate. It gives him absolute power with regard to that matter. Lord Parmoor objects, because he says this is out of place in the Bill. He objects entirely to this Amendment dealing with co-operation, because he says it should not be in the Bill. But then he further says the Bill is to guarantee the minimum wage under all conditions. Now all conditions, so far as I understand the noble and learned Lord, would comprise co-partnership.

377
Therefore I support the noble Viscount's Amendment and say that it should be inserted in the Bill as a separate clause, and if the noble Viscount goes to a Division I shall support him in the Lobby.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:I am extremely grateful for the debate which has taken place. I am sure it has been of great value, and I trust that the public will take notice of it. I am impressed by the objections of Lord Askwith, who has told us of the technical difficulty of doing this in this way, and at this stage of the Bill. No doubt your Lordships are in very great difficulty in dealing seriously with any legislation under the conditions under which you are asked to deal with it on practically the last day of the Session—under conditions which show the complete contempt with which the Government regards this House.
LORD PARMOOR:Oh, no !
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:That is my opinion, and I must say that there is difficulty in asking this House to accept this Amendment at this stage. I am very much obliged to Lord Mayo for his suggestion that I should bring up a new clause, and if it is possible to do so before to-morrow, when we take the Report Stage, I will consider the matter. I feel, however, in face of the opposition of the Government, and having regard to the stage of the Session, that my Amendment would not be likely to secure any real consideration in the other House, and that therefore it would be a waste of time to insert it here. In the circumstances I shall not insist on my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPEhad on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (3), to insert:
"Provided that in case of urgency a provisional permit, having effect as a permit under this subsection, may, on an application in that behalf, be granted to a worker by the chairman or any member of the committee for the county, and at the next meeting of the committee such grant shall be considered by the committee, whereupon the committee may either confirm or cancel the provisional permit. If the committee cancel such permit, the employer concerned shall not be liable to any penalty under this Act, for paying wages to the worker at a rate less
378
than the minimum rate if the conditions specified in the provisional permit are complied with, but shall be liable to pay to such worker the difference between the amount which ought at the minimum rate applicable to have been paid to the worker and the amount actually paid to him under the provisional permit."
LORD PARMOOR:I do not know whether it will save the noble Earl's time if I bring to his notice that a very similar Amendment stands on the Paper in the name of Lord Clinton. With the first part of that Amendment, and the principle of it, we agree, but with regard to the latter part it appears to be necessary to introduce some drafting alterations. I only wish to make that statement, because I look upon the two Amendments as substantially the same in idea, and we are prepared to accept Lord Clinton's Amendment, subject to certain alterations in the drafting.
EARL STANHOPE:Perhaps I may be allowed to say in a few words why I prefer the Amendment standing in my name, although Lord Clinton is practically responsible for both. I am glad that the Government recognise the difficulty which exists. An employer may take on a badly disabled man, or a man injured in the war, and may not be able to pay him the full minimum wage. He puts in an application, and all the time while that is being considered he stands to be shot at by any common informer who may bring an action against him for paying less than the minimum rate. I understand that under Lord Clinton's Amendment, and I gather it is also true of the Government's Amendment, although the Government may be able to say that they themselves would not institute proceedings, a common informer might yet bring an action against an employer until an actual permit had been given.
Even during the twenty-one days an action can be brought against an employer. The employer is really taking a double risk, because not only is he liable to be fined for paying an agreed rate of wages, but he also would have to make up the difference between the minimum rate of wage and the rate he has paid, if the committee decide that the higher rate should prevail. I agree that if the committee fix the higher rate of wages for a disabled man the employer should pay the difference from the time

379
the man has been employed, but the possibility of having proceedings taken against him will mean that no employer will take on a disabled man until the expiration of the twenty-one days. A man will come to an employer and ask for a job, they will agree upon a rate of wages, and the employer will write for a permit, but until the expiration of twenty-one days the employer will refuse to employ the man, because of the risk which he would run. That is why I prefer my Amendment, although I quite see that there is objection to it in certain respects, for instance, as to the power given to any single member of the committee to grant a permit. I feel that it will be a very great disadvantage to a disabled man if he has to wait for employment until the expiration of the twenty-one days.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at end, insert the said new proviso.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR:I think it would he well on this Amendment that I should refer to the Amendment of Lord Clinton, and show how we desire to meet the difficulty which is the foundation of the Amendment of the noble Earl and the Amendment of Lord Clinton. The object is to remove any liability to proceedings against an employer who is employing a disabled man at less than the minimum rate, so as to enable such a man to commence employment, provided the matter is settled in his favour after a certain time. That is what I think we all desire to do. There are two ways in which the Government are endeavouring to approach the question and settle it. One is in the form of an Amendment of Lord Clinton's proposal, and the other is in the form of some words which we have sketched out, and which really go further than the Amendments of Lord Clinton and the noble Earl.
I think it will be convenient if I read the words which we have sketched out. They are as follows:—
"If an application for a permit is not disposed of within twenty-one days after the day on which it is received, then the employer of the worker to whom the application relates shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages at a rate less than the minimum rate during the interval between the expiration of the said period and the date on which the application is ultimately disposed of."
I believe those words are wider than the words suggested in either of the Amend-
380
ments. We have also drafted an Amendment to Lord Clinton's Amendment, but I doubt whether it goes so far as the words which I have suggested.
Lord Clinton's Amendment is to insert at the end of subsection (3) this proviso:—
"Provided that an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages at a rate less than the minimum rate to a worker in respect of whom an application for a permit has been made during the period that such application is before the committee unless the application shall have been considered and refused within twenty-one days of the receipt thereof."
This is the form in which we have drafted our Amendment to Lord Clinton's Amendment. It is to insert:
"Provided that an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages less than the minimum rate to a worker in respect of whom an application for a permit has been made under this subsection during the period elapsing between the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of the application and the determination of such application."
I think that might leave the clause open to this difficulty. It might be said that during the twenty-one days steps might be taken. I am prepared to give any undertaking on behalf of the Minister that that would not be so. But I agree with the noble Earl that it would be better to have it specific in the Act itself. If the noble Earl would like to withdraw the Amendment I would move one in the terms which I have suggested, which, I think, go further than either of the Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I would point out that, even though the Government's proposed Amendment, as I understand it, goes a certain way, it does not go so far as my noble friend's Amendment. Before the Government absolutely close their minds to my noble friend's Amendment I hope they will consider it a little more. Perhaps my noble friend will be content to take the Government Amendment for the moment, but before we finally dispose of the Bill I hope they will consider it from a wider point of view.
LORD PARMOOR:Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:The only object we have in view is that these men who are not able-bodied should not

381
be turned out of their employment altogether. There is a great risk of it if you put difficulties in the way of the farmer, and if you say to him: " You are liable to penal proceedings if you employ this man, who is not able-bodied, at a lower rate than the minimum rate of wages." The natural consequence will be that the farmer will say to the man, " I cannot be bothered with you. You are an old friend of mine, and I should have liked to employ you, but the Government and Parliament have interfered. I should expose myself to great penalties if I did so. It is not my fault if you starve; I would have done it if I could." That is the sort of attitude that might be adopted.
I think the Government are called upon to go as far as they possibly can to meet that difficulty. There is no doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, in his Amendment, does go a considerable distance further than either Lord Clinton or the Government, because his Amendment would operate immediately; there would be no three weeks' interval. The moment the less than able-bodied worker wanted to get work the farmer would merely have to go to a member of the committee and ask for a provisional permit. Under that he would be perfectly secure until the matter could be tried by the committee. During that interval the single committee man would have the power and authority to issue this provisional protection. That would operate immediately, and it would reduce the farmer's peril to the smallest possible proportion. If, however, you have a three weeks' interval the difficulty at once arises. The farmer wants the worker immediately. He will not wait for three weeks, but will get somebody else. He cannot under the Government's Amendment, without peril, pay the man less than the proper rate of wages during the first three weeks. He will have to run a risk. Well, he will not run that risk. You may say it is mean of the farmer, but they work on a very small margin of profit, and they have to cut things very fine.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER:I thoroughly agree that, as employers of labour on farms, the last thing we wish to do is to turn off a man who, through physical inability, is unable to perform a full day's work and earn a full day's
382
wage. I am very doubtful whether even Lord Stanhope's Amendment goes far enough. I am very doubtful whether, in my own county, I should know who were the members of the committee, and I am perfectly certain that three-fourths of the farmers will not know their names. If it is a question of applying to one of these members of the committee in order to get an exemption none of the farmers, I think, will take the trouble. They will simply tell this old or disabled man that he can go; they cannot run the risk of employing him. I should go even further than Lord Stanhope. I think the application ought to be made to a magistrate, or to somebody near at hand, whom the farmers will know.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR:Is not the point really whether the farmer is acting bona fide, or whether he is not. If he is acting bona fide I think he should be protected. If there is fraud, or suspicion of fraud, let him suffer, but if a man is quite genuinely giving lower wages because he has reason to believe that the man whom he is employing is not able to do a full day's work I cannot see why he should be fined for what is, after all, very likely an act of charity. Would the Government look at it from that point of view before finally making up their minds?
LORD STRACHIE:I should like to support what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster. I am quite sure that Lord Clinton's Amendment is much better than Lord Stanhope's, because, in a great county like my own, it is very unlikely that the names of the members of the committee will be known. Under Lord Clinton's Amendment the mere fact, of applying for a permit makes the man perfectly safe.
LORD PARMOOR:I agree, with what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has said. I think Lord Clinton's words are really the best. Let us look at his Amendment. It says:
"provided that an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages at a rate less than the minimum rate to a worker in respect of whom an application for a permit has been made…"
That is quite clear. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, that to go and search for a member of the com-

383
mittee is not the right way of proceeding. Then Lord Clinton's Amendment proceeds:
"… during the period that such application is before the committee…"
That is to say that, having made the application, he is not to be liable for proceedings.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Will the noble Lord stop there?
LORD PARMOOR:I do not want to answer in the negative. But let me read it through.
"… unless the application shall have been considered and refused within twenty-one days of the receipt thereof."
Would the noble Marquess agree to that? I believe there are some difficulties about that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Let the Government stop at the word " committee " and then consider it between now and the Report stage.
LORD PARMOOR:I do not think I can go further. I accept Lord Clinton's Amendment, subject to looking into it between now and the Report stage to-morrow. Let us see whether we can come to an agreement, because I have one or two forms before me which I am told are substantially the result of agreement made on this very point. I think the best plan would be to let Lord Clinton's Amendment be put in, with the understanding that it is to be further considered before to-morrow.
LORD SUMNER:Will the noble and learned Lord say that he will cover the twenty-one days' interval somehow?
LORD PARMOOR:I think it ought to be covered.
LORD SUMNER:What he suggested was that there should be a Ministerial undertaking not to prosecute. That is, you create an offence by Statute, and then you give a Ministerial undertaking not to prosecute the offender, which seems to me an extraordinary thing to propose. There could be two or three forms suggested by which, from the day on which the application is sent in, the employer shall be safe in paying less than the minimum wage if it so happens that, by no fault of his own, he cannot get his
384
application returned. Will the noble and learned Lord see that in some way or another when it comes to the Report stage that twenty-one days shall be covered?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY:Surely, this is a simple matter. Supposing a man is more or less unable to perform a full day's work, why should there be any trouble? He can get a medical certificate from his panel doctor that he is unable to perform a full day's work, and then the employer will offer him less. I have dealt with the same kind of thing myself, and it is very simple. A man suddenly or gradually fails, and the panel doctor says: " I do not think he will ever be good for very much." Then the employer says to the man: "If you like to go on I will give you so much a week." That is the best way of doing it. There need be nothing said about a minimum wage or anything else. You take things as they are. Farmers are very good natured people in that way and they will help a man on. If you have to wait until this, that and the other is done, in my opinion you will have a great deal of unpleasantness and possibly, prosecutions, and so on. Why not allow a man to work for what he is worth?
LORD PARMOOR:In reply to the noble and learned Lord, I agree that undertakings are of no value really in matters of this kind. It is a question of what the Act itself contains. This is a matter which wants more consideration. I have been trying to consider it this morning, but there are so many other matters to be dealt with. I think the best plan would be to allow Lord Clinton's Amendment to be inserted and before tomorrow I hope that we shall come to an agreement in reference to putting in or omitting any words that may be necessary in order to deal with the matters to which reference has been made.
EARL STANHOPE:I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE:In the absence of Lord Clinton, I beg to move his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at end insert (" provided that an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying

385
wages at a rate less than the minimum rate to a worker in respect of whom an application for a permit has been made during the period that such application is before the committee unless the application shall have been considered and refused within twenty-one days of the receipt thereof ")—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR:I accept this Amendment subject to what I have just said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREmoved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"(5) In fixing minimum rates for time-work under this section a committee shall secure, for able-bodied men, wages which in their opinion are equivalent to wages for an ordinary day's work at the rate of at least thirty shillings per week."
The noble Marquess said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name I feel sure that the House will acquit me and those who think with me of any attempt to obstruct or place any difficulty in the way of the Government at this period of the Session. But the position of the labourer is so dreadful and so ghastly, and the Bill as it stands, after having been " amended," as it is called, by the addition of the unfortunate Acland Amendment, which nine out of ten Liberals so profoundly deplore, is of such a character that there is nothing left for us to do except to move an Amendment on behalf of the agricultural labourers of England in the hope that it may be accepted.
The position of the agricultural labourer is a very sad one. I do not want to go over old ground, but some of your Lordships may not have been present when the Bill was read a second time, and I should like very briefly to quote again the statement of Mr. Noel Buxton, the Minister of Agriculture in the Labour Government. I ask your Lordships to remember that this is not a statement made by a person who knows but little of what he is talking about; it is not a statement made to create sympathy or anything of the sort; it is a distinct statement of a member of the Government, speaking not only for himself but for every single member of the Cabinet to which he has the honour to belong. The right hon. gentleman said that in some counties of England,
386
happily not in all, a man who is in receipt of the standard rate of wages of 25 s. a week and has a wife and five children has only 15 s. and a few pence left to feed himself, his wife and his five children after he has paid for the necessities and decencies of life, and all that he can spend on each meal for these unfortunate people is three-farthings per head. I leave it at that. It is not my statement. It is the statement of Mr. Noel Buxton who is Minister of Agriculture and a member of one of the finest Norfolk families. He is responsible for the statement, and he says that it is absolutely true.
What are we to do with the Bill in its present state? Can we possibly allow such a state of things to go on? Is it possible to conceive that in this country such a state of things shall be allowed to go on? What objection is there socially, politically, or financially to the Amendment I have the honour to submit to your Lordships? The reason urged against it is that the Norfolk farmers are unable to make both ends meet if they do not pay these horrible starvation wages. I maintain that that is a libel on the farmers of Norfolk as a whole. As I told your Lordships on a previous occasion, farmers can and do pay 30 s. a week in districts where there is a demand for industrial labour. In many parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire 30 s. a week is being paid by farmers to-day on land which is no better and produces no more than the average land in Norfolk, Oxfordshire and Wiltshire. I should like to point out that these farmers in the north of England were able to pay 30 s. a week last year when prices were very low. Prices are rising now. I believe that wheat—I speak under correction—is £1 a quarter more than it was last year. Flour is supposed to be 3s. a sack more, and a ewe and lamb can be sold, I believe, for £11. Yet in those circumstances, when agriculture is reviving to a certain extent, it is said that Norfolk farmers are unable to pay a decent minimum wage to their unfortunate labourers, though farmers in other parts of England and in worse circumstances were able to do so twelve months ago.
I am not going to detain your Lordships by reading the Amendment, but I may, perhaps, be permitted to say that the words I ask you to insert in the Bill

387
are identical with words which appear in the Corn Production Act, 1917, Lord Ernle's great Act, which saved the country from starvation. In that Bill the wage was set down as a 25 s. minimum. An Amendment was moved to increase that to 30 s. a week, and who was it that moved it? It was moved by the Labour Party themselves—the very men who now are in office. That Amendment was supported by Mr. Wardle, who was at that time a Labour leader, and he was supported by Lord (then Mr.) Arnold, by Mr. Noel Buxton himself, by Mr. Ramsay Mac-Donald, the present Prime Minister, by Mr. Thomas, Mr. Adamson and practically the whole of the Labour Party. Now we have this Bill. What is it? Is there anybody in this House, I almost might go so far as to ask is there anybody out of this House, is there any human being who up to now has said a single good word for it? There is the Lord President of the Council. We know what his forensic career has been; we know what a genius he is. The Bill could not be in better hands than his, but I am afraid he could not make much of it. But he was the only man who said one word during the Second Reading debate on the Bill to explain it, or one word in its favour.
What did others say? There was Lord Selborne. There is nobody in England whose opinion is more valued, and valuable, than Lord Selborne's. His speeches are always reported everywhere and he knows what he is talking about. Lord Selborne said that: This is an Act for turning the land of England into grass as soon as possible. He began his speech by saying that. What did Lord Long say? Lord Long is one of the men who was in the running for the Premiership. He is one of the best known and most respected members of your Lordships' House. What did Viscount Long of Wraxall say? He said: " The Bill as introduced was a bad measure, and, as amended, I strongly object to it." What did Lord Banbury of Southam say? He always speaks his mind everywhere, as we know. Lord Banbury said: " It is a bad electioneer ing Bill which nobody believes in."
Then, this afternoon, we have had a most interesting speech from Viscount Cecil—a speech that was listened to with the greatest possible attention. I think he said that the Bill was only a palliative, and that there was nothing practical in
388
it. The Bill was called by one of the Ministers a " half-a-loaf-is-better-than-no-bread bill." With prices rising in the way that I have described I should almost be inclined to call it now " a-quarter-of-a-loaf-is-better-than-no-bread bill." That is not very strong praise of the Bill. Finally, in the Holland Division by-election, one Labour supporter who had a sense of humour—very grim humour certainly it was—called it an "Agricultural starvation wages continuance Bill." Those are the descriptions of this unfortunate Measure given not only by its opponents, but also by its supporters themselves.
I went to the House of Commons and listened very attentively to the speeches on the Third Reading of this unfortunate Bill. There were four speakers who struck me very forcibly. The first I heard was Lord Wolmer saying that this Bill is being carried into law by the co-operation of the Conservative and Socialist Parties, and he added: " This is being done to the obvious disgust and chagrin of the Liberal Party as a whole." I agree with what the noble Lord said, but I go further than that and say that this agreement, " this subtle underground work," as Mr. Ben Tillett called it, is not only looked upon with disgust and chagrin, but also with alarm and dismay. The next speech that struck me was that of Mr. Emlyn-Jones, who voiced, as I understand it, the opinion of the Liberal Party. He had the whole of the Liberal Party at his back, and he was helped by three other Liberal members of the House of Commons. He moved the Amendment which I have the honour to submit to jour Lordships. That Amendment was not allowed to be put under circumstances which it would be impossible for me to allude to in this House, still less to criticise. He made a splendid defence of the attitude of the Liberal Party. He did the best he could, and it seems to me that he is a man who will make his mark, end come into the front rank amongst the politicians in this country.
Then we had a lamentation from one who has every right to speak for the agricultural labourer—Mr. George Edwards, who has been an agricultural labourer himself, and knows what he is talking about. He expressed the disappointment, and almost the despair, of the agricultural labourers at the omission of what they had

389
been led to expect—namely, a fixed minimum wage of at least 30 s. a week. But the most important speech of all was made by a woman—Miss Jewson, the Labour Member for Norwich. She spoke from the Back Benches in a most modest and ladylike way. She had her back to the wall, but I could hear every word she said, and what she said was very alarming indeed. Being Labour Member for Norwich she knows what the condition of the Norfolk labourer is, and she knows how many of them have been driven into the town by the terrible conditions under which they live.
She said:
"Those who have had some experience of trade boards realise that, with the Central Wages Board gone, and the fixing of wages under the Bill left almost entirely in the hands of local committees, the position is very bad indeed."
We had perorations which followed each other with monotonous rapidity, to the effect that we must all do the best we can to show good will and make this Bill work smoothly. In regard to this Miss Jewson said:
"It is all very well to speak of good will in the carrying out of this measure, but in the cases of many of the people concerned their position is too desperate to speak to them of good will. The men and their wives are having a terrible struggle, the children are going to school half-starved and not properly clothed, and it is insulting to talk to such people about good will in the industry."
I have nothing more to say. Your Lordships have known me long enough to believe that I would not attempt to dictate in any way to your Lordships' House, but I do implore you to think, as Mr. Gladstone said, not once or twice, but thrice, before you go into the Lobby to support this dreadful Bill as it stands.
Think what our responsibilities are now. By holding up one finger and by going into the Lobby we can rescue and relieve those who fought for us in the war, their wives and their children, from a state of misery and semi-starvation. Every one, in his heart of hearts, would be glad to vote for a living wage for these poor creatures. Is it too late now? If you cannot vote for the Amendment are you going to vote against it? Are you going into the Lobby against this proposal to give a living wage to so many of our fellow-creatures? If the news could be flashed to Norfolk to-night that the House of Lords had come to the rescue
390
of the unfortunate Norfolk labourers, imagine the joy and the gratitude there would be in so many Norfolk cottages, where the women are starving themselves in order to put body and soul into their poor children. I have done. I have done the best I could. I am afraid my poor words will not be of much use, but I cannot say all it would mean to these unfortunate people if this Amendment, this moderate proposal, could be inserted in the Bill, and we should be relieved from a state of things, which, as I said on the Second Reading, is not only a national scandal and disgrace but a national danger and a national crime. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Lincolnshire.)
LORD PARMOOR:I hope your Lordships will not be induced to consider the Amendment which the noble Marquess has brought forward. I have ample evidence before me that if this Amendment is introduced the certain result will be that the Bill could not proceed, and there would be a far larger amount of dismay, if I may use the term used by the noble Marquess, amongst the agricultural workers in this country if that should happen than if the Amendment was accepted. Let me give illustrations of fact rather than of fancy. One of the unions of agricultural workers does not want a 30 s. minimum wage, and the reason they do not want it is because they know that in many circumstances it would tend to reduce the wages they are actually receiving at the present time. It is far too rigid a sum when you come to apply it over the whole of the country. Not only that, but they say that strong representations have also been received from the Scottish Farm Servants' Union against such a proposal; they fear it might have a tendency to depress wages, which in Scotland are generally above 30 s. per week.
It is difficult to say what is the opinion of all agricultural workers, but, judging from my own experience, I say that the enormous majority of them are against any proposal to fix 30 s. as a minimum, as one central figure. I believe the great mass of farm workers desire to have the matter discussed and settled locally. I need not go further into that matter at the moment, because under the provisions of this Bill there is ample power to come

391
to headquarters if the local committees do not fix the minimum, or should some difficulty arise. What I wish the noble Marquess to appreciate is that there is to be a minimum fixed for all agricultural wages under this Bill. That is the whole principle of the Bill. What he desires is one fixed minimum, which, according to the views of the unions, would not only be not beneficial but would actually tend to reduce the wages which men are, in fact, receiving at the moment. The noble Marquess shakes his head. I know the conditions in Yorkshire and Buckinghamshire, he knows the conditions in Lincolnshire, and I say without any hesitation that if a 30 s. minimum were adopted it would have no effect in Buckinghamshire, because 30 s. is practically in existence there now, and as regards Yorkshire it would have a tendency to reduce wages as much as 10 s. below their present level.
When he pleads on behalf of the agricultural labourer, my answer is that they do not want this plea. They do not want to have this one minimum wage fixed at headquarters, because they know how deleterious it would be, in the long run, to their own interests. I cannot imagine, having some knowledge of agricultural matters, how you can have one minimum wage fixed at headquarters which would be fair all round. The conditions of agriculture differ in different localities. They differ as regards proximity of markets and towns, as regards fertility of soil, and in numerous other ways. Any attempt to fix this one minimum wage would, in my view, tend not in the direction which the noble Marquess has indicated but directly in the opposite direction, and the tears and moans to which he so eloquently referred are much more likely to be heard if this minimum is fixed than if the reasonable method is adopted of fixing a minimum rate in reference to different conditions in different localities.
There are one or two other matters which I must put straight. This is the second time that the noble Marquess— he did so on the Second Reading debate —has attacked Mr. Noel Buxton, the Minister of Agriculture. Quite unintentionally, I am sure, he has wholly misrepresented what he said on the Second Reading of this Bill in another
392
place. What he referred to was the reason for the Bill being passed. He referred to these conditions, and said he regretted them. He brought them forward as illustrations of the necessity for the Bill being passed, and it is only just to the Minister to say that there is not the slightest ground for the suggestion that he mentioned these intolerable conditions—I think those were the words used—with the idea that he sanctioned them and that they ought to be preserved. It was absolutely the contrary. He quoted illustrations of these bad conditions as a reason why, in his opinion, a Bill dealing with the mini mum wages question must be passed.
I will not go into the speeches made in the other House to which the noble Marquess referred, but he quoted three members of this House—Lord Long, Lord Banbury of Southam and Lord Selborne. But they did not support his thesis; their speeches were against it. Even as the Bill stands, they expressed their fears regarding the influence of any minimum wage—and this is a minimum wage Bill—on the interests of agriculture. I should like to know what those three noble Lords would have said if this proposal had appeared in the Bill. I see one of them here. I feel perfectly certain that, if any one of those three noble Lords had been speaking on the proposal of the noble Marquess, his speech would not have been in his favour but entirely the reverse. He would have emphasised his objections to it, and, I believe, would have expressed the view that it would lead to the downfall of the agricultural industry in this country.
There are, of course, two sides to the question whether you are to have one minimum wage, fixed at headquarters, or various minimum wages, fixed with reference to local conditions. But there must be no mistake about this: there is to be a minimum in any case, and it is this that the noble Marquess appears to forget. He talks as though there could be no minimum except a single minimum, applicable over the whole country. That is not so, and it is precisely because it is thought that a single minimum would not operate for the benefit of the industry that the Bill was brought into its present form. I want to say quite frankly that the Bill as originally introduced into the

393
House contained the provision which the noble Marquess is asking your Lordships to introduce.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE:There never was, in the Bill as originally introduced, a 30 s. minimum wage.
LORD PARMOOR:I made a statement which I ought not to have made. I beg your Lordships' pardon; it was not in. I thought it was. I know that it was a good deal discussed, but it was not in, and quite rightly. What happened? I say quite frankly that the question ultimately arose whether there was to be a Bill dealing with this matter of minimum wages this Session or not. It came to that. I think that the Government and the Minister of Agriculture were more than justified in saying that a Bill of this kind should not be allowed to go by the board, and that it should be preserved in the only way in which it could be preserved, and that is by the agreement and the arrangement which were arrived at. I do not think that it is any use shutting our eyes to the fact that for many years it may be that any one Party will be in a minority when the two other Parties combine against it. I believe that this is likely to be a condition of our political life for many years. I think it would be the height of folly not to recognise that. Are we to throw over every measure which we hope will bring reform in our social conditions, such as all these questions of agricultural labour, because we do not think it wise to adopt the only attitude which enables us to deal with them in a practical form?
As I said in proposing the Second Reading of this Bill, I think that it was. a step in the right direction when the compromise was arrived at. Speaking as much in the interests of the agricultural labourer, and being as much concerned with regard to his interests as the noble Marquess, I say that it would have been a great misfortune if the compromise had not been reached, and it would have been a great misfortune if the great advantages which this Bill will give to the agricultural labourer had not been pressed forward. I am not going into the question whether the conditions of poverty have been exaggerated or not. As tested by the conditions in places where I know what the life of these men
394
is, they would be exaggerated, but, whether they have been exaggerated or not, I do believe that, in the interests of all, we ought to have this minimum wage, and we can have it only on the principle of its being settled in the various localities. I ask your Lordships, in spite of the eloquence of the noble Marquess, not to be led away into accepting his Amendment.
LORD RATHCREEDAN:I desire to make a few remarks in connection with this Amendment, in order that I may justify the vote which I am about to give, and which might, in some senses, be considered paradoxical. I agree in a great measure with that which fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Long, on the Second Reading, when he pointed out that the farmers were practically between the devil and the deep sea. They had either to pay what the majority of them considered to be very large wages, or they were obliged to allow the greater part of the land which they cultivated to go into grass. This agricultural question has not been dealt with fairly or justly by the present Government in this Bill. We are told, in the first place, that we are to accept the measure as it stands without amendment because, forsooth, an agreement was entered into by a section of one Party in the other House! I have not been a member of your Lordships' House for very long, but I was for many years a member of the other House, and I was given to understand that your Lordships' House existed for the purpose of revising and ameliorating measures which came up from the other House. Now we are told that in this instance, when we are dealing with the agriculture of this country, which is the greatest of all its industries, we are to accept the measure absolutely in the form in which the Government submit it to us. In my opinion this is not only a slight upon your Lordships, but it amounts to a gross insult.
The landlords of this country are at present in this position: they are getting for their capital a paltry two per cent., or at most three per cent., whereas, if they could divert it into some industrial pursuit, any sound industry in this country would give them twice that interest. The farmer, as I have pointed out, is in the position of barely being able to make both ends meet, and the noble-

395
Marquess has described the condition of the agricultural labourer in many parts of the country. I know that in South Oxfordshire the agricultural labourers voted almost to a man in one particular direction because they were definitely promised this minimum wage of 30 s. a week. The farmers were offered some sop to enable them to give these wages. Now both farmers and agricultural labourers are thrown over. I know that there are these various committees to which they can apply, but, after all, as was pointed out, I think, by my noble friend Lord Strachie, the power remains with the Minister and with the central body, and it is to this that the agricultural labourers and the farmers of this country strongly object.
I may be asked why, if these are my views, I am going to support the noble Marquess. I am going to support him because something must be done. I contend that this agricultural question is a great national question. The agricultural question is a great national question, and it should not be dealt with in a piecemeal manner. Certainly it should not be a Party question. We all agree that in the interests of the country at large it is necessary to keep whatever agricultural population we have upon the land, and to prevent them rushing into the towns and lowering the wages of the urban workers, and thereby multiplying unemployment. The present Ministry came into power for the purpose of doing away with unemployment. This measure will do nothing to do away with unemployment, and therefore I feel that it is my duty to support the noble Marquess if he goes to a Division.
LORD GAINFORD:Before the Amendment is put I should like to reply to one or two observations made by the Leader of the House. He alluded to this Amendment as being calculated to kill the Bill. I do not believe that that fear really has any sound foundation. He further said that it was absurd to place in the Bill a general minimum wage—that a minimum wage ought to vary according to the circumstances and the fertility of the soil. It is perfectly true that fertility varies, and wages vary, and it is also true that after the passing of this Amendment there will be a varying minimum wage according to the fertility and circum-
396
stances of every county; but what we ask for is that in no county shall wages be reduced to a lower figure than 30 s. I have had some little experience in connection with agricultural affairs, although I hesitate in this House to address your Lordships upon matters connected with agriculture, knowing the wide experience that many of your Lordships have had; but having lived in Yorkshire, I can undertake to say that Yorkshiremen are not going to allow the minimum in favour of the worst-paid counties to affect them. They are competent to look after their own interests, to see that the wage that they have hitherto obtained shall obtain in the future, and that their minimum shall vary according to the fertility of the soil and circumstances in Yorkshire.
The minimum is a principle which we have to accept whether we like it or not. It has been on the Statute Book for some years, and in the last mining strike in 1921, when there was a long stoppage, it was very patent to the coalowners of the country that in another great industry the miners were not going to accept any arrangement which did not secure for them a definite subsistence wage. What we are asking here is that the poor agricultural labourer in the worst paid districts shall receive a subsistence wage. In my own County of Durham the subsistence wage for the mining population is 7s. 6d. per shift for the lowest class of unskilled labourer, working on the surface of the mines. That means that he gets over 42 s. per week in cash, and in addition, if a married man, he gets coal and house rent free. The agricultural wage of the skilled man working on the farms in this County is now 35 s. per week, and he would not be subject to the Amendment, but there are districts where the agricultural worker would be subject to this Amendment, and I come to another County with which I have been closely associated, having represented for eight years the Northern Division of the County of Essex.
When I first became representative of the agricultural labourers in that county the average wage of the agricultural labourer was 11 s. per week. In 1901 it was raised to 12 s., and before the war it had been raised to 17 s. But that is a wage which did not really enable the farmers to employ what I call physically strong men. The result of a low wage in

397
the County of Essex was that all the young men and able-bodied men left the district and went abroad or into the towns. The older men were left, and many of them had large families. I saw something of the suffering of the men and of their families, living on 12 s. per week, during the eight years I was their representative. These men cannot live on a wage of from 12 s. to 17 s. per week as they did before the war, and the equivalent of that to-day, with the increased cost of living, is between 25 s. and 30 s. per week. I say that 30 s. is as low a wage as Parliament ought to ask any agricultural labourer to accept. I am perfectly certain that if you pay a man a wage on which he can live respectably and happily he will be a far better worker on the farm. It is because I believe that, whether some farms will have to go out of cultivation or not, it is better for the nation that the standard of living should be raised to at least 30 s., that I shall support the noble Marquess in the event of his going to a Division.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY:I have heard so much about my own County that I really think I must say a word or two. I honestly confess that I used to think a minimum wage a very good thing. The minimum wage started during the war, and it worked fairly well. I only wish that my noble friend Lord Ailwyn was here. He was Chairman of the Central Wages Board. What you want is a great many more things than the minimum wage. You have got to remember that in my county, and I dare say in a great many other counties, farms are let with a number of cottages at one inclusive rent. The consequence is that the farmer can charge what he likes. Now that is one of the great curses of the agricultural industry.
If you want to have a minimum wage you want to have all your agricultural cottages at one particular price. I can go not many miles circuit from my own place and find a great difference in the rents that these agricultural labourers are paying. Some are paying up to 3s. a week. You go a little further, and you find that they are paying not more than 2s. 6d. or 2s. a week. All my cottages are in my own hands, with the exception of those on two farms, and the farmers there are personal friends of mine. All have
398
separate agreements, and the tenants can only be turned out by receiving notice on April 6, to expire on October 11. It works quite well. Of course, some cottages are better than others. They were built by my father, and I often wonder what they cost. Not one of the tenants has ever had his rent raised since the cottages were built, and many of them were built in 1865. They pay £4 a year. Of course, it is not an economic rent, but no cottages were ever supposed to pay an economic rent. The landowner built them simply for the farmers' workmen to live in. But that is one reason why we cannot have a general minimum wage. You can, as indicated by the Leader of the House, have a separate minimum wage for every district, and you must have confidence that the people will come to some arrangement.
In my own County they never did come to an arrangement till the other day, when, marvellous to relate, they agreed to fix the rate of harvest wages. Personally, I believe that is a very good omen, and I only hope that state of things will continue. It is very difficult to get people to agree. I should be absolutely dishonest if I said that the people in my County are living in misery and starvation, because they are not. I have never seen anybody in that condition. At one time there was an election campaign going on, and politicians were trying to see how many votes they could catch by promising people more wages on the plea that they were starving, but there was no truth in it. God knows, I wish they had more wages, but they can have more in many ways. They can work only eight hours a day, as my people do, and they can earn other things besides.
To tack on this Amendment to the Bill would, in my opinion, be absolutely fatal. Agricultural Bills are not very easy to work. You cannot control the clerk of the weather, and what suits the East of England does not suit the West. You really want separate Acts for separate districts. You have to be content with what the French call a pis aller. I shall not be the least afraid to meet people whom I represent after this Division, because to insert this proposal for a general minimum wage would be disastrous to them.
On Question, Whether the proposed new subsection shall be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Allendale, V. [Teller.]

Crawshaw, L.

Denman, L.

Anslow, L.

Emmott, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Cawley, L.

Gainford, L.

Chichester, E.

Chalmers, L.

Hemphill, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Stanhope, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Danesfort, L.

Devonshire, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Darling, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Desborough, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Chaplin, V.

Dynevor, L.

Salisbury, M.

Chelmsford, V.

Erskine, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Ancaster, E.

Harris, L.

Bradford, E.

Novar V.

Hylton, L.

Clarendon, E.

Peel, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Younger of Leckie, V.

Lawrence, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queen sherry)

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Ripon, L. Bp.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Fortescue, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Kimberley, E.

Olivier, L.

Lucan, E.

Anslow, L.

Rowallan. L.

Malmesbury, E.

Arnold, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Mayo, E.

Avebury, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Midleton, E.

Balfour of Burleigh. L.

Sumner, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)

Templemore, L.

Thomson L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
EARL STANHOPEmoved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert:
"and shall so far as practicable secure for workers other than able-bodied men who are not incapable by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause of performing the work of a normally efficient worker (other than an able-bodied man) such wages as in the opinion of the Committee are adequate to promote efficiency."
The noble Earl said: It is rather curious that under Clause 2 (4) an able-bodied man is all sorts of things besides being an able-bodied man. He is also a lad or a boy, or any male worker who is not mentally deficient or physically unfit. Therefore, under this clause as it stands, you have two considerations which affect wages. One is that wages shall be sufficient to promote efficiency, and the other is that wages shall be sufficient to maintain a man and his family. Obviously that is inapplicable to a man who is other than able-bodied, and a boy.
Therefore, later on I propose to amend the definition of an able-bodied man so as to show that it shall apply only to those who have attained the age of twenty-one years. Even apart from that, this subsection does not affect
400
women and girls. As I said before, the basis of wages in Clause 2 is the question of efficiency and of their sufficiency to support a family. Therefore, I beg to move my Amendment, not with reference to the definition as it stands at the moment but as I hope your Lordships will eventually make it. The question of the family does not enter into the question. Unless you leave this Amendment out of the Bill entirely there is a necessity for it in regard to the basis on which wages are to be settled.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said new words.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR:I think there must be some misunderstanding upon this point. The Bill deals with men, women and boys. It deals also with men who are in some sense disabled in that they are not in a position to earn the ordinary minimum wage. That being so, I have difficulty in seeing to what the noble Earl's Amendment is directed. It says " and shall so far as practicable secure for workers other than able-bodied men ", and so on. Women and boys are already dealt with in the Bill. Workers other than able-bodied men are also dealt with because men who are in any way disabled

401
either by age or infirmity can work for an agreed wage which is less than the minimum wage. The noble Earl will find these words in subsection (3)—
"If … a committee are satisfied that any worker … is so affected by any physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age…that he is incapable of earning that minimum rate the committee shall grant to the worker a permit exempting…"
—and so on. It is dealt with already. We have been dealing with it as regards cases in which less than the minimum wage may be paid and in reference to which I said I would consider subsequently the words of Lord Clinton's Amendment. I am really unable to see what the noble Lord is aiming at, because all these matters are already treated in the Bill itself. I hope that he will not press his Amendment, which is not necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I think that the noble and learned Lord will find, if he looks at the matter a little more closely, that there is a defect in the Bill. I ask, on what principle is the minimum wage to be fixed? In subsection (4) there is a reply to that question as the Bill stands, but the reply is confined, if the noble and learned Lord will be good enough to follow me, to able-bodied men. It says: "In fixing minimum rates the committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men ", and so on. Except so far as Lord Clinton's Amendment is concerned (and I do not think that quite covers the ground) the only direction for fixing minimum rates is that contained in subsection (4) of this clause, and that is confined to able-bodied men.
If I look at the definition of " able-bodied men " in Clause 16 I find this—
"The expression ' able-bodied man ' means any male worker who is not incapable by reason of physical infirmity "—
and so forth—
"of performing the work of a normally efficient worker."
So far as subsection (4) is concerned it does not include able-bodied women or girls; it is confined entirely to male workers. My noble friend Lord Stanhope established, first of all, that in the case of able-bodied women and girls there is no direction in the Bill under which
402
the minimum wage is to be determined. So far as men are concerned it is based on efficiency. So far as women and girls are concerned there is no direction whatever. I do not know what the Government intend, and I should be able to discuss this matter more easily if I knew what was in their minds in regard to able-bodied women. Is an able-bodied women to receive a minimum wage? Yes. Is that minimum wage to be determined on the question of efficiency? There is nothing in the Bill. It may be that is intentional. It may be they do not propose that in the case of a woman or girl the efficiency test shall be the test. There is this to be said for it, that a great difficulty arises in the case of women, as between married women and single women, and if efficiency is the test it is clear that the married woman does not want so much as the single woman. I say that the definition is not apt to the able-bodied woman or girl. My noble friend has established, as I think, that there is no proper provision in the case of women and girls, because there is nothing in the Bill at all.
As to the boy, he is covered by the words of subsection (4) because under the definition of " able-bodied man," as the Bill stands he is a male worker and therefore he is covered by this clause. The difficulty there is of another kind. The efficiency test is not quite right in the case of a boy who does not necessarily want wages which shall keep him in efficiency, because, presumably, he does not live by himself but in his father's house. Therefore, the efficiency test does not seem to be exactly apt. My noble friend has put the efficiency test into his Amendment, if I may say so, for want of a better proposal. I think that we should be much better able to discuss this matter if we knew what was in the minds of the Government.
LORD PARMOOR:I appreciate what the noble Marquess has said and I will try to reply to him. There are two minimum wage clauses and I will deal with both of them. One is Clause 2 and the other is Clause 4, which deals with inadequate payment for piece-work where no minimum wage is paid. In both of them I think the matter the noble Earl referred to is covered. Clause 2 provides that—

403
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, agricultural wages committees shall fix minimum wages for workers employed in agriculture…"
Then, if you look at the Definition Clause, you will see that:
"The expression ' worker ' includes a boy, woman and girl."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:That is so.
LORD PARMOOR:Therefore, so far as that is concerned I think there can be no doubt. When we come to the other matter which, of course, is an important one, though not quite of the same importance, we are dealing again with any worker employed in agriculture, and it certainly seems to me that any worker employed in agriculture—certainly any class of women or boys—comes into the terms of the definition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:The point is that " worker " does not come into subsection (4).
LORD PARMOOR:Subsection (4) of what?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Subsection (4) of Clause 2.
LORD PARMOOR:I will refer to that in a moment. I thought the noble Lord was referring to Clause 4 which has the word " workers " in it. Subsection (4) says:
"In fixing minimum rates a committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as in the opinion of the committee are adequate to promote efficiency."
I see now what the noble Earl means. Although wages are to be fixed for women and boys, there is no test in the same way that there is a test in the case of able-bodied men. I think that is so. As a matter of fact, I think the Bill was intended to be framed on that basis, but now that this matter has been called to my mind I do not want to rule out the efficiency test. It is difficult to see how an efficiency test is to be fixed in the case of women and boys. I understand now that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is suggesting that there is no efficiency test.
EARL STANHOPE:There is no explanation on which a committee can settle what the wages are to be.
LORD PARMOOR:I think the efficiency test is intended to be left out, and is left out, in the case of women and boys. The efficiency test is only applied to able-bodied men.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I beg the noble Lord's pardon; it is applied to boys.
LORD PARMOOR:Where is that?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:" Able-bodied man " includes a boy under the Definition Clause.
LORD PARMOOR:Then it comes down to the question of whether there is any efficiency test in the case of women. There is no provision, so far as I know, for an efficiency test in the case of women's work, but it is a matter that I will enquire about. I looked carefully at the noble Earl's Amendment, but it was not thought to be directed to this point. No doubt it was our fault in not adequately appreciating what was meant. The one point left is whether there should be an efficiency test in the case of women, and I will have that looked into.
EARL STANHOPE:Would the noble Lord like me to press my Amendment now, and to consider it on Report? I think he will find that there ought to be something on which the committee is able to base itself in fixing wages for women and girls. They have something to guide them for able-bodied men, but there is nothing in the case of women. If the Government wish to cut out women and girls let us negative my Amendment. Otherwise, I think they will want words in the sense of my Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR:I regret that I have not been made cognisant of this point. It will be considered, and I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power of the Minister to direct the reconsideration of minimum rates.
6. The Minister may direct an agricultural wages committee to reconsider any minimum rate which has been fixed by them, and thereupon the committee shall reconsider the same and notify to the Minister the result of their reconsideration.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMmoved to leave out Clause 6. The noble Lord said: This is a very short clause, but a very mischievous one. The clause means that the ultimate fixing of the minimum wage under this Bill is in the hands of the Minister, and it is in the hands of the Minister because, as the Bill stands at the present moment, he has the power to appoint two independent members in each locality, and those independent members will hold the balance in their hands. Therefore, if a local committee agrees to a wage, say, for the sake of argument, of 30 s. a week, and the Minister thinks that it ought not to be 30 s. a week but 35 s., or some other sum, all he has to do under this clause is to inform the committee that they must reconsider it, and at the same time privately inform the two independent members who have been put on by him, and who can be removed by him, that they are to vote in a certain way, and then it will be done.
I would ask your Lordships to remember the circumstances in which this Bill was introduced, and the circumstances in which the Wages Board for agriculture was set up some seven years ago. In 1917 it was determined in order to increase food production, to give a bounty to farmers, and it was said then that because farmers were going to have a bounty, or might receive a bounty, out of the funds of the nation, part of that bounty should be passed on to the agricultural labourer. Therefore, a Wages Board was instituted to fix a minimum wage for the labourer. Then, again, in 1921, when further alterations were made, it was always contended—I remember the debates in another place perfectly well—that the only justification for establishing a Wages Board was that the farmer was going to receive a subsidy from the State. Then, in 1921 or 1922 —I forget which—it was found that the subsidy would cost the State too much, the members who sat for urban constituencies were afraid that their supporters would not like putting their hands in their pockets to give a subsidy to the farmers, and therefore the subsidy to the farmers was cancelled. At the same time the Wages Board was also cancelled.
The two things always went together, but now, for the first time, without a subsidy for the farmer, you are going to
406
have a Wages Board. You are also going to say under this clause that the Wages Board shall not have power to fix the minimum wage, but that it shall be reserved to the Minister, sitting in Whitehall, to fix the wage. There are some small sweated industries which are, I think unfortunately—I opposed it at the time—subject to Trade Boards, but there is no great industry which is so subject. The coal industry, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gainford, spoke a few minutes ago, is not subject to a Wages Board. The arrangement in the coal mines industry is a voluntary arrangement entered into between the masters and the men. The wages are not fixed in any kind of way by a Wages Board. I should like to see this clause deleted. I cannot understand how anybody can support a clause of this sort. The whole trend of the view of the Farmers' Union, and of the farmers themselves, has been against legislation of the kind which they call " farming from London," and this clause is going to preserve that, and to preserve it in a form worse than that contained in the Wages Board of 1917, because power will be absolutely in the hands of the Minister.
Let me point out this to your Lordships, in addition to what I have already said. In the House of Commons a member may ask a question of a Minister, provided that the Minister has control over the subject of the question. Therefore, if a Minister sends back a wage to the local committee, and some advanced member of the House of Commons, anxious to obtain credit in his constituency, thinks that the increased wage ought to be paid, all he has to do, unless this clause is left out, is to put a question down in the House of Commons asking the Minister why he has not insisted upon an increased wage being paid. When the salary of the Minister comes up in Supply that subject can be debated, and you will have advanced members of the House of Commons—members on both sides; I do not make any distinction—whose chief concern is to make themselves popular in their constituencies, taking advantage of this clause to raise discussions upon the Minister's salary in order to show how anxious they are to secure high wages for their constituents.
If this clause is left out the Bill is in no way injured; the principle that

407
wages should be fixed by the committee will still remain. All that will happen is that the Minister sitting in Whitehall will not have the power to compel farmers and their local committee to do something which they have no desire to do and which probably they have no means of doing. This is a very serious matter. It is the worst clause in the whole Bill. I hope I have put the matter quite clearly before you, and as I do not want to take up any length of time I will now content myself with moving the omission of this clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR:The noble Lord has almost convinced me that this is an important clause. I was prepared to say that it was not of much importance and that I should not care to press it if the feeling of the House were against it. But the noble Lord has said so much that he may be right in some of his statements with regard to its importance, although he has not convinced me that there is anything in his argument. It gives no power to the Minister to interfere at all. All it does is to say that the Minister may ask them to reconsider the matter. He has not the slightest control over it. My only difficulty, when I rose for the purpose of saying that we do not attach any great weight to the clause, has arisen from what the noble Lord has said. He described it as the most important clause in the Bill. In my view it is an unimportant clause, and I am not prepared to press it if the House takes the view that it should be deleted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Penalties and legal proceedings.
(4) Where an employer has been convicted under this section for failing to pay wages to any worker at not less than the minimum rate applicable, then, if notice of intention so to do has been served with the summons, warrant, or complaint, evidence may be given of any failure on the part of the employer to pay wages to that worker at not less than the minimum rate applicable to him at any time during the eighteen months immediately preceding the period of six months mentioned in the last preceding subsection, and on proof of the failure the court may order the employer to pay such sum as is found by the
408
court to represent the difference between the amount which ought to have been paid to the worker by way of wages at the minimum rate applicable during those eighteen months and the amount actually so paid.
EARL STANHOPEmoved, in subsection (4), to leave out " failing to pay " and insert " paying." The noble Earl said: I do not know whether the Lord President is prepared to explain this sub-section in language which will be understood by the agricultural labourer. I had to read it many times before I understood it at all. Double negatives are employed, and it is not easy to define. My Amendment, and also the other Amendments on the Order Paper, cut out these double negatives and put the subsection in much simpler form.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, leave out (" failing to pay") and insert ("paying").—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR:I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. We have looked into this very carefully from the drafting point of view, and I think the drafting is quite right. You have to have a form of drafting in relation to the preceding subsections. The matter has been fairly considered, and it is thought that it is now in the better form and should not be altered.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I am sure the noble Earl will not press the Government on a matter of drafting, but I am glad he has called attention to it. If I may say so, I think the drafting is very clumsy. It is a double negative and most difficult to understand. If the Lord President would be good enough to consult the draftsman again I shall be quite satisfied.
LORD PARMOOR:I will do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Regulations.
(2).Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be

409
annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation and it shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
LORD STRACHIEhad on the Paper an Amendment to leave out subsection (2) and insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of any-thing previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation."
LORD PARMOOR:Let me say, in order to save time, that subject to a drafting Amendment I am quite willing to accept the Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE:I am much obliged to the Lord President.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN:I will read the new subsection as amended by the Lord President and accepted by the noble Lord: —
"(2) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an Address to His Majesty is agreed to by either House. …"
and so on.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, leave out subsection (2) and insert the following new subsection:
(" (2) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address to His Majesty is agreed to by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.")—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Appointment and powers of officers.
9.—(1) The Minister may appoint a secretary for the Agricultural Wages Board and a secretary for each agricultural wages committee and, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, such officers as he thinks necessary for the purpose of investigating complaints and otherwise securing the proper observance of this Act.
(2) Any officer so appointed shall have power—

(a) to require the production of and to inspect and take copies of wages sheets or other records of wages paid to workers employed in agriculture;

(b) to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place for the purpose of such inspection or for the enforcement of this Act; and

(c) to require any such worker, or the employer of any such worker, or any agent of the employer to give any information which it is in his power to give with respect to the employment of the worker or the wages paid to him.

(3) If any person—

(a) hinders or molests any officer acting, in the exercise of his powers under this section: or

(b) refuses to produce any document or give any information which any such officer lawfully requires him to produce or give; or

(c) produces or causes to be produced or knowingly allows to be produced any wages sheet, record or other document which is false in any material particular to any such officer knowing the same to be false; or

(d) furnishes any information to any such officer knowing the same to be false,

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
EARL STANHOPEmoved, in subsection (1), after " Board and," to insert " (after consultation with the agricultural wages committee concerned.)" The noble Earl said: This is to provide that the secretary to the committee shall only be appointed after consultation with the agricultural wages committee concerned. As the Bill stands the Minister has the right to appoint the secretary, a most important officer, without any consultation whatever with those with whom he will have to work. If these committees, are to work smoothly and rapidly it is necessary that they should be consulted before the secretary is appointed.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 7, after (" and ") insert (" (after consultation with the agricultural wages committee concerned) "). — (Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR:I think one or two considerations have not been present to the noble Earl. In the first place the secretary will be appointed before the committees are constituted, and, in some cases, will help in their constitution. In the second place, the expenses of the secretary are to be paid by the Treasury, and it is expected that one secretary will act for various agricultural wages committees. It is not work that will take up a man's whole time, and Regulations might be made so that the same secretary might be appointed for more than one committee. The noble Earl will understand, therefore, that the Bill as it stands is best. These secretaries are, in our view, Ministerial officers of no great importance.
VISCOUNT PEEL:I am not entirely convinced by the observations of the Lord President. With regard to the point raised by the Amendment it does not matter very much whether the same man is secretary to one or more committees. The secretary will have to work with the committee, and it is perfectly reasonable that before he is appointed the committee with whom he is going to work should be consulted as to whether they would like to work with him. Nothing would conduce more to the easy working of the committee than that they should have some say in the appointment of the man with whom they are going to work. I hope the Lord President will meet us on this point.
LORD PARMOOR:I think the noble Viscount did not quite appreciate my answer. I agree with a great deal that he said, but what I suggested was that a secretary might be secretary for a good many of these committees. Instead of having perhaps fifty secretaries paid by the Treasury, we contemplate that there will probably be only five, or some such small number, and that they can get through the work perfectly well. The secretarial work of a committee of this kind is almost nominal. You must have a secretary, of course, in order to keep minutes and so on, but there is very little other work, and the Treasury do not desire to appoint a large number of unnecessary secretaries when the same secretary can operate for a number of these committees. But this cannot be done if you have to have the consent of
412
the committees. They might not give their consent. I have put my point, and I hope that this provision will not be introduced, for the reasons that I have stated.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON:The noble Lord speaks of the secretary as doing secretarial work, but he must know that in a case of this kind the whole of the executive work will go through the secretary, and the secretary will have the executive working of the officers who are to be appointed. If your Lordships will look at the powers given to the officers, you will see that they are of the most inquisitorial description. The officer is given power—
"to require the production of and to inspect and take copies of wages sheets or other records of wages paid to workers employed in agriculture—"
LORD PARMOOR:I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but I was dealing only with the question of secretaries. The question of officers is a different matter altogether.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON:The secretary will have the executive working of the officers. Unquestionably the officers will all work under the committee, and the secretary is the person who will issue all instructions to the officers. I would put it to the noble Lord that nothing is so likely to cause friction, especially in the country districts, as a man being sent from headquarters without consultation with the persons who are chiefly involved in the matter. They will take an opportunity of raising all sorts of difficulties. I do not think that a more unwise thing could well be done than to appoint the secretary without the concurrence of the committee. As my noble friend merely proposes consultation with the committee, I sincerely trust that he will press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYO:May I ask the noble Lord one question? In answering the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, he stated that the secretaries would be appointed before the committees. May I ask where that is inferred in the Bill?
LORD PARMOOR:The appointment of the secretaries is in the hands of the Minister, and it would be a difficult form of administration to have the secretaries

413
appointed when you are getting these committees together. That is my information, and I think it would be so. I do not want to keep up argument upon a point of this kind, but it appears to me, from my knowledge of agricultural committees and country committees, that the duties of the secretary would be almost nominal. No doubt the committee would have to fix the minimum wage in the first place, and then I dare say they would not be wanted to meet again—I was going to say for years—unless some difficulty arose. I have said what I have to say. This is not a matter in which I would put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but, from an administrative point of view, I think the Bill is much better as it stands. The officers, of course, are upon a different footing. They are not the officers of the local bodies, and they are quite distinct from the local bodies.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER:May I ask the noble Lord one question? When we were dealing with the question of granting exemptions and allowing less than the minimum wage to be given to people who were not able-bodied, or who were suffering from some infirmity, I understood that we agreed that all these demands would have to go through the secretaries of these committees. I merely ask the noble Lord to give that point his consideration. The farmers in these cases will have to apply to the secretary, which will mean a good deal of correspondence.
LORD PARMOOR:I think that is so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:And a certain amount of local knowledge as well.
LORD PARMOOR:I will not say anything more. I do not wish to repeat myself. I said that the secretary would be appointed first, and would assist in the arrangements and Regulations, whatever they might be, for the work of the committees. If your Lordships take the ether view, I can only say that I have put the view of the Government as strongly as I can, and I must leave it there.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPEmoved, in subsection (1), after " number " to insert " and after such consultation as aforesaid." The noble Earl said: This applies the
414
same principle to the officers. Perhaps I might say that some of us who went through this Bill so far disagreed with my noble friend opposite that they felt that the secretaries would have so much to do that it would not be possible for them to take on any of the work of the officers.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 9, after (" number ") insert (" and after such consultation as aforesaid ").—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR:I do not know whether your Lordships will regard this as the same point over again, but the officers stand upon rather a different footing. The officers are really sent down from Whitehall to investigate certain matters, if necessary. I do not want to go over the question again, but I rather hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMmoved to leave out subsections (2) and (3). The noble Lord said: These subsections give power to the officers of the wages boards—

"(a) to require the production of and to inspect and take copies of wages sheets or other records of wages paid to workers employed in agriculture;

"(b) to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place for the purpose of such inspection or for the enforcement of this Act; and

"(c) to require any such worker … to give any information—"

and so on. Then it goes on to lay down the penalties to be inflicted if any person hinders or molests an officer in the performance of his duties. These are very great powers to give to some petty official, as these officers will in all probability be. I think we all know what happens to a man who is given a little temporary authority and how he is very often liable to abuse it. The farmer is, from the nature of his business, in a very different position from that of the manager of a bank or a factory. He may be a mile, or a mile and a half or two miles, from his farm house, working in his fields at a time when the weather happens to be propitious, and one of these officials may approach him and order him to go back to the farm house, or may go round amongst the men and stir up all sorts of strife in order that he may be recommended for promotion as a zealous officer.

415
In the Act of 1919 the clause was somewhat different, because it said that the officer could enter only at reasonable times and after proper notice had been given. The Act of 1917 had somewhat similar provisions, though they were not quite so savage. It was there laid down that proper notice was to be given before the official could enter upon the farm— proper notice and at reasonable times. The penalties, so far as I remember, were nothing like so severe. Under the present Bill the penalties are a fine not exceeding £20, or imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both fine and imprisonment. Really those are very heavy penalties, which might be imposed if a farmer had done some criminal act, but ought not to be imposed if he has, perhaps inadvertently, done something which he ought not to have done under the BILL.
I was going to make this proposal to the noble and learned Lord. Owing to the very short time that we have had for the consideration of this Bill it has been impossible to put down all the Amendments that one would like, or to put them down in the form that one would wish. If the noble and learned Lord will tell me that between now and Report he will consider whether or not he can alter this clause, so as to preserve the clause in the Act of 1917—namely, that it shall be necessary to give proper notice—and if he will reduce the penalties, then I will not press my Amendment. I do think, however, that it is absolutely necessary the farmer should be protected by proper notice being given that this official is going to call, and also that the official shall call at reasonable times, and further that the penalty should be reduced. I beg to move my Amendment, in order to give the Government an opportunity of saying whether they accept my suggestion.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 13 to 42, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR:I am afraid I must say at the outset that I cannot accept the noble Lord's suggestion. Of course, so far as you omit subsections (2) and (3) the whole Bill at once becomes unworkable, because the only sanctions that the provisions of the Bill shall be carried out are contained in subsections (2) and
416
(3). They have been very carefully considered. The provisions in the Bill follow very closely the provisions found to be necessary in the enforcement of the Trade Boards Act, and I do not think they go too far. It is enormously to the advantage of farmers as a mass that these conditions shall be complied with, and the penalties ought to be sufficient to ensure compliance. Every other farmer would be penalised if one particular man was enabled to defy the Act and there were no sufficient sanctions to make him comply with its provisions. We want this Bill to operate, and I believe it is only in very few cases that these sanctions would become operative at all; but it is necessary to have them, for otherwise the man who complied with the provisions would be penalised and the man who did not obey the law would be let off.
LORD HARRIS:Surely the noble and learned Lord does not object to giving reasonable notice?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:I do not think the noble and learned Lord quite understood the proposal that I made to him. I did not propose to leave out the whole of the subsections. All I asked was that whether, having regard to the short time that we have had for considering the Bill, he would put in words which would compel the official to give reasonable notice of his visit. Under the clause as it stands it may be that the official will come to a farmer who is paying proper wages, or rather the wages fixed by the Wages Board, and is anxious to pay them, and yet the official will have the right to demand to see all the farmer's books, and under this clause the farmer may be compelled at any time, without notice, to produce his books, although he has been paying the proper wages. Surely a clause which will enable a farmer to be taken before a magistrate if he does not obey that demand is wrong, and I object to power being given to these officials to come in at any time, perhaps on mere suspicion and without proper notice. I cannot see why the noble and learned Lord objects to the insertion of words requiring that the official shall give proper notice.
LORD PARMOOR:Really I think the noble Lord hardly appreciated my answer. These are inspectors and are entitled to

417
make visits, or to enter at all reasonable times, in order to see that the provisions of the Act are being complied with, and, for the purpose of seeing that, to call for necessary documents. It is the sort of provision which applies to every Bill of this sort. You do not always want to give notice. We want the inspector, who has probably had information supplied to him, to be able to go and see whether a particular person is being employed at the time at adequate wages. I do not think you can have real sanction of the Bill except substantially in these terms.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:The noble and learned Lord referred in effect to paragraph (b), which says that the officer shall have power " to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place for the purpose of such inspection or for the enforcement of this Act." That means he may search a man's house from cellar to garret.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:The first subsection says nothing about " reasonable times " at all. The inspector may meet a farmer in the market, and may require him to produce the whole of his documents there and then.
LORD PARMOOR:It would not happen.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:I dare say it would not, but this is extremely bad drafting.
LORD PARMOOR:Having regard to what has been said I will look into the matter. I cannot go beyond that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:Upon that understanding I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HARRIS:Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) says that a person shall be liable to a penalty who refuses to produce any document, or give any information, which any such officer lawfully requires him to produce. Can the noble Lord assure the House that that word " lawfully " applies to the words in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), which requires the worker or the employer, or any agent of the employer, to give any information which it is in his power to give with respect to the employment of the worker or the wages paid to him?
LORD PARMOOR:Undoubtedly.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Definitions.
16.—(1) In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression " able-bodied man " means any male worker who is not incapable by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause, of performing the work of a normally efficient worker.
EARL STANHOPEmoved, in the definition of " able-bodied man," after the first " worker," to insert: " who has attained the age of twenty-one years and." The noble Earl said: I hope that the noble Lord will accept my Amendment. He will see that the expression " able-bodied man " means " any male worker who is not incapable by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause, of performing the work of a normally efficient worker." Under these words a boy would be included in the expression " able-bodied man." That is not what is intended by the Bill, and I suggest it should be amended by the insertion of the words of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23. after (" worker ") insert (" who has attained the age of twenty-one years and ").—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR:The objection to this Amendment is that there are people twenty years of age, and even younger, who are competent in every way to do all forms of agricultural work. In fact, some of the young workers are the best, and they .ire entitled to the minimum wage. They are able-bodied men; that is to say, irrespective of their age, they are entitled to a wage that an able-bodied man can earn. My experience is that agricultural labourers below the age of twenty-one come fully under the definition of " able-bodied men," and can do their full share of farm work.
EARL STANHOPE:Does the noble and learned Lord include a boy of fourteen?
LORD PARMOOR:The limitation is in the words themselves. Is the person in question an able-bodied man? That is for the committee to determine, and it should not be determined merely by age.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:As this definition is drafted it means
"any male worker who is not incapable by reason of physical injury …"
that would apply to a boy of fifteen—
"or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age…"
Nobody would say that a well-grown boy of fifteen was incapable of working because of an infirmity due to age. It is evident, I submit, on the definition as it stands, that any male worker of fourteen and upwards would be entitled to the full minimum rate of wage, and although, no doubt, that is not what is intended, the drafting requires some such Amendment as my noble friend suggests.
LORD OLIVIER:The Amendment limits the minimum wage to men of twenty-one and over, but at present boys of seventeen or eighteen constantly get men's wages.
LORD DANESFORT:There ought to be some age beyond which a man can be called able-bodied, and below which he cannot, and if the noble and learned Lord thinks the age of twenty-one in the Amendment is too high would he accept eighteen? A man is fairly well grown at eighteen.
LORD PARMOOR:I am very anxious not to cut out of the benefits of this Bill any able-bodied man who really can do the work of an able-bodied man. From my own knowledge of agricultural workers many of them are capable of doing the work, though they are below the age of twenty-one. I think it is a mistake to insert the age. Lord Cecil of Chelwood asks about a boy of fifteen or sixteen. I do not think that any committee endowed with some sense would regard such a boy as a able-bodied man.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:It is a most ridiculous position that the Government is putting the Committee into. They really, in effect, say, " Our definition would include a boy of fourteen, but no committee would be so silly
420
as so to construe it." In other words, they are putting into the Bill something that the committee would think so ridiculous that they would not accept it. Surely, that is not the way to draft legislation.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:Is not a boy who is unfit for the work on account of his youth already excluded by the definition? The definition does not say " old age "; it says " any infirmity due to age." If the person is too young to do the work set for him to do he is suffering from an infirmity due to age.
EARL FORTESCUE:Surely the concluding words of the definition make it fairly clear. A boy of fourteen would not be capable " of performing the work of a normally efficient worker."
LORD DANESFORT:May I propose an Amendment to the Amendment— namely to leave out " twenty-one " and insert " eighteen "? Then the definition would read:
"The expression ' able-bodied man ' means any male worker who hag attained the age of eighteen years…"
and so on.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out ("twenty-one") and insert (" eighteen ").—(Lord Danesfort.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I hope that the Government will meet us. I am sure they must see that the drafting is not satisfactory. They cannot defend it. It would be a pity that we should divide against the Government on a matter which they really cannot defend.
LORD PARMOOR:The difficulty is this. There are many boys of eighteen who are not able-bodied men; there are others who are. Therefore the test which the noble Earl Lord Fortescue referred to is the right one. The question is: Is the person in question an able-bodied worker in the sense of being entitled to the minimum wage? If you put in the age of twenty-one you may cut out men whom you ought to include; if you put in the age of eighteen you may bring in people whom you ought to exclude. It is really a question of fact in each case. If it would help the House I can reconsider it, but I really do think that we should not put in the age.
VISCOUNT PEEL:Would not it be possible to say: " The expression ' able-bodied man ' means any male worker who is not incapable of performing the work of a normally efficient worker "? It if the surplusage of words in the middle, which seem to limit the definition, which caused the trouble.
LORD PARMOOR:It is difficult to consider drafting questions at the moment, but it appears to me that the noble Viscount's suggestion might meet the difficulty. I am prepared, so far as I can see for the moment, to adopt it, but, if it is put in, we may consider it afterwards. At first sight the words seem to meet the difficulty.
EARL STANHOPE:May I respectfully point out that these words really do not meet the case? Take a big County like Kent. Does the noble and learned Lord really think that the secretary or the committee is going to go into every single case of a worker as he grows up, year by year, in order to decide whether he is to get the full minimum rate of wages? Obviously the committee must have some definite rule to work to, and then there could be exceptions, if you like.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, negatived.
EARL FORTESCUE:May I move the omission of the words, as suggested by Lord Peel, " by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause "?
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 23 to 25, leave out (" by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age, or to any other cause ").—(Earl Fortescue.)
LORD PARMOOR:I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his suggestion. I do not think it makes any difference, and the definition will read just as well as it did before—
"… who is not incapable of performing the work of a normally efficient worker."
I accept the noble Earl's Amendment in that form which, I understand, is the form in which he desires to move it.
EARL FORTESCUE:That is so.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN:Perhaps I had better read the words which it is proposed to omit—
"by reason of physical infirmity or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOORmoved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) For the purposes of this Act the Scilly Isles shall be deemed to be a county, and the area comprising the Ulverston Rural District and the Grange, Ulverston and Dalton-in-Furness Urban Districts shall, if the Minister so directs, be deemed to be a detached part of the county of Lancaster."
The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to deal with the case of the Scilly Isles and the particular district in Lancashire which is detached from the County of Lancaster. The first part of the Amendment—" for the purposes of this Act the Scilly Isles shall be deemed to be a County "—meets the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the second part—" the area comprising the Ulverston Rural District and the Grange, Ulverston and Dalton-in-Furness Urban Districts shall, if the Minister so directs, be deemed to be a detached part of the County of Lancaster "—meets the other point. I believe that portion of the County has always been regarded as detached from the rest.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:The Amendment meets my point, and I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Constitution and Proceedings of Agricultural Wages Committees and the Agricultural Wages Board.
Agricultural Wages Committees.
1. An agricultural wages committee shall consist of members representing employers and members representing workers in agriculture in the county for which the committee act (in this Act referred to as repre-

423
sentative members), in equal proportions, of two members appointed by the Minister and of a chairman.
3. The chairman of an agricultural wages committee shall be appointed annually by the committee, but if the committee at any time fail to appoint a chairman within the prescribed period the appointment may be made by the Minister.
A committee may nominate one or more persons for the office of vice chairman, and the chairman may from time to time appoint one of those persons to act in his place as vice chairman in his absence.
A representative member of a committee shall not be qualified to be appointed chairman or vice chairman of the committee of which he is a member.
Agricultural Wages Board.
9. The chairman of the Board shall be such one of the appointed members as the Minister may nominate. At every meeting of the Board the chairman if present shall preside, and if he is absent such appointed member as the members then present choose shall preside.
10. At least one member of the Board shall be a woman.
LORD STRACHIEmoved, in the first clause, to omit " of two members appointed by the Minister." The noble Lord said: I do not wish to press this Amendment after the way in which the Lord President has met us on Clause 6, which has taken away a great deal of my objection to the appointed members. But I will move it formally in order that I may ask whether the noble and learned Lord would place a time limit upon the services of these appointed members, something to the effect that their term of office shall not exceed three years. Under the Bill as it now stands the Minister would have power to appoint any one he likes for the term of his life or for a very long period. I do not desire to be unreasonable in the matter, but we have to think not only of what the Minister of Agriculture may do under this Government but under any other. It seems to me that no Minister of Agriculture, whether under a Conservative, a Liberal, or a Labour Government, ought to have power to appoint two members for life.
I shall not press my Amendment because I shall not have the sympathy of the Front Opposition Bench. I understand that the Conservative Committee of
424
agriculturists in another place approve of these two appointed members and that the National Farmers' Union have accepted them as a compromise. Therefore I should be against the Conservative Committee and the National Farmers' Union. Although I entirely disagree with these two appointed members and consider that the view of the National Farmers' Union and the Conservative Committee of agriculturists in another place is entirely wrong, I move my Amendment formally for the purpose of asking the noble and learned Lord to consider whether there should not be some limitation of the time during which they shall hold the appointment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 11, leave out (" of two members appointed by the Minister ").— (Lord Strachie.)
LORD PARMOOR:The noble Lord is right in supposing that these words were introduced on behalf of the National Farmers' Union and the Conservative Committee of agriculturists in another place. I will, of course, look carefully into the noble Lord's suggestion, but I cannot give any undertaking in regard to it.
LORD GAINFORD:I am under the impression that an agreement was come to in another place that the appointed members should come up for revision from time to time and be reappointed if they were perfectly satisfactory?
LORD STRACHIE:In asking the leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Amendment, may I say that I do not think that any agreement was made in another place in regard to the renewal of the appointment of the appointed members? I think the noble Lord is mistaken there.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYhad an Amendment on the Paper, in the first clause, to insert " impartial " before " members," where that word lastly occurs.
LORD PARMOOR:I accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 11, after (" two ") insert ("impartial").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMmoved, in the first clause, to leave out " Minister " and insert " county council of the county." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, so that the two independent members should be appointed by the county council of the county instead of by the Minister. The object of the Amendment is to remove the Minister from this matter. In these days there is a great deal too much of the Minister. The Minister interferes in everything. The county council are far and away more capable of dealing with agricultural questions than is the Minister. In addition to that, they are free to a certain extent from political bias.
LORD Strachie said just now that the Farmers' Union were in favour of the independent members, but I think he is a little mistaken in that. I hold in my hand a letter, dated August 1, 1924, from the National Farmers' Union, in which it is stated that—
"The Union has never approved the principle of compulsory arbitration enshrined in the Bill now before the House of Lords and it has used its influence to the utmost in its attempts to persuade members of the House of Commons to reject that principle; the memoranda in your possession upon this subject issued from this office are evidence of our activities in this direction. When, however, it became clear from the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in the Commons that all parties were committed to the principle of the regulation of wages of workers in agriculture by compulsory arbitration, it was felt that nothing would be gained by our refusal to make suggestions for the amendment of the Bill‥"
LORD STRACHIE:The noble Lord will pardon me, but that does not at all contradict what I said. I said that the National Farmers' Union had accepted that compromise. It is quite true that they objected to it, though, to my surprise, they did not fight it, but took it lying down.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:I did not gather that the noble Lord said that. I want to emphasise that the National Farmers' Union accepted this provision unwillingly. It is all set out in this letter, which I will not read because it would take up too much of your Lordships' time. They accepted it because they were erroneously under the impression that if they did not they would get a worse Bill. That is absurd, as the noble Lord knows.
LORD STRACHIE:Yes.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:There is nothing whatever in this Bill reprevent another Bill being brought in next year. Therefore, what the National Farmers' Union have done is to give away their whole case under pressure, and because they did not understand Parliamentary procedure and the minds and habits of Labour Ministers. The Farmers' Union proposed, so I am informed, either the Lord Lieutenant of the County, or the chairman of the county council. I have gone a little further and suggested the county council itself, because it brings in all bodies of political opinion and all shades of persons in the county. I think it is very important to get the Minister out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 11, leave out (" Minister ") and insert (" county council of the county ").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR:I think the Minister is the right person to make this appointment. He represents all parties as head of the Ministry of Agriculture. At one time he may belong to one Party in politics, and at another time to another Party, but as head of the Ministry of Agriculture he represents the whole industry. I do not know what the noble Lord's experience is, but I may say that I was for over twenty-five years a member of the County Council for Buckinghamshire, and I think the county council is a very unsuitable body to deal with a matter of this kind. I know it is a popular thing in this House to say: " Let us abolish the Ministry " or " the Minister," but when you come to administrative details you see how impossible this kind of thing is to work in practice. I submit that the Minister is the appropriate person to make the appointment, and I must maintain that position, because I think the county council would not be a representative body, particularly not representative of the agricultural workers. I do not think any county council is the appropriate body in that sense, because they really cannot afford to give their time. I doubt whether there is any county council with more than two agricultural labourers at most, upon it. The conditions are such that agricultural workers cannot give their time to attend.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:May I point out in the first place that the Minister of Agriculture does not represent all parties either in this House or in the other House, and secondly, that if the Minister of Agriculture is left in, there will be, we hope, sooner or later, a change in the Government of the country? You may have a Conservative or a Liberal Minister, and then, if he changes the policy, it will be put down to political bias. Therefore, I think it is much better to have the county councils who are less subject to political bias than a Minister. The noble Lord says that the county councils will not have time. I am not suggesting that a county councillor should be a member; I am merely suggesting that county councils shall appoint somebody. He need not be a member of the county council. I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON:I entirely agree with what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam. I cannot believe that satisfaction will be given in the counties if the Minister makes this appointment. The Minister is quite unaware of the local circumstances of the counties.
LORD HARRIS:I should think, whether the county council is an appropriate body or not, county councils are not in the least desirous of being burdened with this patronage. There is the difficulty that the county councils meet only quarterly, and you may want the chairman appointed immediately after a meeting of the county council. Are you to compel the county council to meet again?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:This refers to the two independent members, not the chairman.
LORD HARRIS:I think they would be still more desirous of not being burdened with the duty of appointing the independent members.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL STANHOPEmoved, in the third clause, after " period " to insert " which period in the case of the appointment of the first chairman of the committee shall be one month after the establishment of the committee." The noble Earl said: I do not know whether the noble Lord
428
opposite will accept this Amendment. It is to define the period in which the committee have power to appoint their own chairman.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 20, after (" period ") insert the said words.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR:Our view was that it should be a matter of Regulation and not of Statute. It will be introduced as a Regulation. Twenty-eight days is a more appropriate expression than one month. I think it ought to be in the Regulations, and not in the Statute. I will give an undertaking that it will be introduced into the Regulations as a period of twenty-eight days.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIEmoved to leave out " 10. At least one member of the Board shall be a woman." The noble Lord said: I do not move this Amendment because I object to women being upon the Wages Board. Quite the contrary. I think it desirable that they should be on, but if you put restrictions into a Bill it is regarded as a sort of indication that not more than one woman ought to be appointed on the Wages Board. In these days it is little short of an insult to women, when all sex disqualifications have been removed, to subject them to special treatment in every Act of Parliament. In the old days, when women had not the franchise, and had not a majority of votes in this country (as they soon will have) it was different, but in these days it is desirable that all these distinctions should be swept away, and that there should be a free choice to the Minister to appoint whom he likes. I contend that it is absolutely unnecessary to put in these words, because they seem to suggest that women are to be put on these committees on sufferance.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out line 34.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD PARMOOR:I should have thought that it was not necessary to leave out this line. It only says that at least one member must be a woman. I hope your Lordships will leave the Bill as it is. I do not understand the argument of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:I should like to ask the Government

429
whether they are quite satisfied, by saying this with regard to the Wages Board, that they will not rather indicate there ought to be no women on the wages committees. That would be very improper in cases where there is a large number of women workers.
LORD PARMOOR:That is the last thing we would desire to do. We think that they ought to be upon the committees, and it is the intention that women should be on them.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:You do not think that might be the construction that would be put upon it?
LORD PARMOOR:I do not think so, but I will look into the point.
EARL FORTESCUE:May I ask the noble Lord whether the length of time for which members are to be appointed to these committees will be provided for by rules?
LORD PARMOOR:I presume it will be in the Regulations.
LORD STRACHIE:I do not press this Amendment, but I think the noble and learned Lord has quite failed to understand the point that I was making.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule:
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Counties and Combined Counties for which the First Agricultural Wages Committees are to be established.
Counties of Bedford and Huntingdon.
County of Berks.
County of Buckingham.
Counties of Cambridge and Isle of Ely.
County of Chester.
Counties of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.
Counties of Cumberland and Westmorland.
County of Derby.
County of Devon.
County of Dorset.
County of Durham.
County of Essex.
County of Gloucester.
Counties of Southampton and Isle of Wight.
County of Hereford.
County of Hertford.
County of Kent.
County of Lancaster.
Counties of Leicester and Rutland.
County of Lincoln, Parts of Holland.
County of Lincoln, Parts of Kesteven and Lindsey.
County of Middlesex.
County of Monmouth.
County of Norfolk.
Counties of Northampton and Soke of Peterborough.
County of Northumberland.
County of Nottingham.
County of Oxford.
County of Salop.
County of Somerset.
County of Stafford.
County of Suffolk.
County of Surrey.
County of Sussex.
County of Warwick.
County of Wilts.
County of Worcester.
County of York, North Riding.
County of York, East Riding.
County of York, West Riding.
Counties of Anglesey and Carnarvon.
County of Carmarthen.
Counties of Denbigh and Flint.
County of Glamorgan.
Counties of Merioneth and Montgomery.
Counties of Pembroke and Cardigan.
Counties of Radnor and Brecknock.
N.B.—This Schedule is to be read as subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the County of London, county boroughs, and detached parts of counties.
LORD PARMOORmoved to leave out the Second Schedule and insert:
"SECOND SCHEDULE.
Combinations of Counties for which Committees are to be Established on the First Establishment of Committees.
Counties of Bedford and Huntingdon.
Counties of Cambridge and Isle of Ely.
Counties of Cornwall and Scilly Isles.
Counties of Cumberland and Westmorland.
Counties of Leicester and Rutland.
Counties of Lincoln, Parts of Kesteven and Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey.
Counties of Northampton and Soke of Peterborough.
Counties of Southampton and Isle of Wight.
Counties of East Suffolk and West Suffolk.
Counties of East Sussex and West Sussex.
Counties of Anglesey and Carnarvon.
Counties of Denbigh and Flint.
Counties of Merioneth and Montgomery.
Counties of Pembroke and Cardigan.
Counties of Radnor and Brecknock."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is to make it quite clear, as I stated at the outset, that it should be denned in the schedule itself, in the cases of combinations, that two or three counties would be allowed in the first instance to combine. It is really consequential.
Amendment moved—
Pages 15 and 16, leave out the Second Schedule and insert the said new Second Schedule.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord President of the Council what are his ideas about the future progress of the Housing Bill and the Agricultural Wages Bill? As regards the Wages Bill, of course we shall take Report and Third Reading to-morrow, after the noble and learned Lord has considered what has passed in this House to-day, and then the next stage will be that that measure will go down to another place. Meanwhile, as regards the Housing Bill, we have already reached a stage at which the measure has gone down to another place; in other words, a moment must presently arrive when we receive the opinions of the House of Commons on both those measures. I understand that we are to meet to-morrow at twelve o'clock, and there is a certain amount of business that we shall get through which is upon the Paper, but not sufficient to occupy us for any length of time. At what stage does the noble and learned Lord anticipate that these two measures will come back from another place? Are we to take them at a later period in the day, or does he contemplate that we shall have to wait till the day following?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I have ascertained, as far as anything of the sort can be accurately ascertained, that a Message from the Commons about the Housing Bill Amendments is not likely to reach this House before five o'clock to-morrow. As to the Agricultural Wages Bill we have to take the Report and Third Reading to-morrow, and it will then go down to the Commons. But whether the Commons will deal with it to-morrow I do not know.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:They are going to adjourn to-morrow.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:If it is taken to-morrow we shall get it, I hope, about the same time as the Housing BILL.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:We shall not be able to get both Bills at the same time?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I do not know, and I do not think anybody knows. The most convenient course is for your
432
Lordships to meet at twelve o'clock to-morrow. There is some business to be done, and after that we may adjourn during pleasure and meet again at five o'clock. It is to be hoped—I cannot put it higher—that then the Message will come back to us from the other House. If we do not do that we shall be in great difficulty. As regards Thursday we shall have to meet on that day in order to clear up other odds and ends; and a Royal Commission is also fixed for Thursday. I do not think we can say anything about the hour of meeting on Thursday until to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:The Royal Commission is fixed for Thursday?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:Yes, we must meet on Thursday. It all depends whether Parliament rises, and if Parliament is going to rise we propose to fix the Royal Commission for Thursday.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:I will not enter into the question as to whether Parliament is going to rise or not. That turns on a point which is not now before your Lordships' House. As regards to-morrow the Lord Chancellor anticipates, if things go well, that we shall have important business coming back to us from the other House at five o'clock in the afternoon. I think that estimate is likely to be over sanguine, but it is of extreme importance that your Lordships should attend in large numbers at five o'clock to hear what treatment, in respect of these two Bills, has been accorded to us in another place. I think we had better leave the matter in that position for the moment.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920, SPECIAL ORDERS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE:My Lords, I beg to move the Motions of which I have given Notice in respect of draft Special Orders under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920. They are in the usual form and have gone through the usual formalities.
Moved, That the draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of

433
the Borough of Middlesbrough, which was presented on the 22nd July and published, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Chertsey Gas Consumers' Company, Limited, which was presented on the 22nd July and published, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Wirksworth Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 22nd July and published, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE:My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Stevenage and the parishes of Graveley and Knebworth, in the rural district of Hitchin, in the County of Hertford, which was presented on the 24th day of June, 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Westgate-on-Sea and Birchington, in the rural district of the Isle of Thanet, in the County of Kent, which was presented on the 10th day of July, 1924, be approved.— (Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply)
434
Act, 1919, in respect of the Borough of Marlborough and part of the rural district of Marlborough, both in the County of Wilts, which was presented on the 21st day of July, 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Conisbrough, Darfield, Hemsworth, Knot-tingley, Royston and Tickhill, the rural districts of Doncaster, Kiveton Park, Pontefraet and Thorne, and parts of the rural districts of Barnsley, Rotherham and Wortley, all in the West Riding of the County of York, which was presented on the 24th day of June, 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Ormesby and Marton, in the rural district of Middlesbrough, and the parish of Nunthorpe, in the rural district of Stokesley, all in the North Riding of the County of York, which was presented on the 10th day of July, 1924, be approved—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MIDLOTHIAN (CALDER DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SEDITIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS TEACHING TO CHILDREN BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD DANESFORT:My Lord, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill T think it would be convenient if I explain why I have found it necessary to move a short Amendment at the end of Clause 4. The position is this. When the Bill was in Committee I was under

435
the impression that it was possible to make Section 17 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, apply to Scotland. It gives the defendant a right to trial by jury. But on consulting important and leading Scottish authorities I found that this is not possible, because it would not fit in with the law and practice in Scotland as to criminal procedure. If a defendant is charged under this Bill with an offence in Scotland he will be amply protected by the legal procedure which exists in Scotland, which is that the Lord Advocate considers these prosecutions and in all proper cases he can, and does, send for trial before a Sheriff with a jury, or before the High Court of Justiciary with a jury, instead of having trial before the Sheriff without a jury. The effect of my Amendment will be to confine the operations of Section 17 of the Act of 1879 to England and Wales. As regards the procedure in Scotland I have the authority of the Lord Advocate for saying that, subject to the Amendment I propose to move, he approves of Clause 4 of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 4:
Penalties.
4. Any person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months, and to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and the provisions of Section seventeen of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall apply.
LORD DANESFORTmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert " in England and Wales." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already explained the reason for this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 2, line 25, at end insert (" in England and Wales ").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920, SPECIAL ORDERS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE:My Lords, I beg to move that the Motions standing on the Paper in my name for Thursday next be advanced to to-morrow. They relate to Special Orders under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920. It becomes necessary to do this because I put down some of the usual Orders for next Thursday at a time when it was almost certain this House would be sitting. It is not certain now that your Lordships will be sitting next Thursday, and it is better to take these Orders to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

RHYMNEY AND ABER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (Which stands appointed for this day) put off sine die.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
WEST CHESHIRE WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES-HEAD CORPORATIONS (BRIDGE) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.