Sitting of 25 February 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill,
South Yorkshire Mines Drainage Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    BOMBAY MUNICIPALITY (BRITISH GOODS).
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received information from the Government of India regarding the resolution of the Bombay municipality which seeks to discriminate against British goods?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. R. Richards): I have
    2
    to-day heard from India that a report is being sent by this week's mail. Perhaps the hon. Member will put his question down again when the report has arrived. I will let him know when it is received.

    NORTHERN FRONTIER (MILITARY ROADS).
    Mr. WARDLAW MILNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what progress has been made by the Government of India recently in the construction of military roads on the Northern Frontier; and what amount of money has been set aside by the Government of India for the construction of such roads?
    Mr. RICHARDS: Progress of military roads is as follows:

    (1) The circular motor road from the Tochi Valley at Isha to Razmak and thence to Jandola connecting with Dera Ismail Khan has been recently completed.

    (2) The road from Thall in the Kuram Valley to Idak in the Tochi Valley is to be made fit for light motor traffic.

    In addition the political authorities are undertaking the following roads:
    (3) A motor road is now being made from Jandola to Sarwekai towards Wano.

    3
    (4) A motor road from Draband to Ghazni Khel just inside the administrative border of Waziristan is now under construction.
    During the year 1923–24 Rs.69,000,000 were placed at the disposal of the military authorities for development of the roads in this part of the country. It is not yet possible to say what, sums will be placed at their disposal in the new financial year.

    MINES (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the nature of the replies received by the Government of India in response to the circular letter sent out to all local government administrations in June, 1923, on the question of the employment of women in mines and the introduction of a system of shifts?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The Secretary of State would not in the ordinary course receive copies of the replies until they are complete. He has at present no information as to the nature of the replies nor whether any have yet been received, but I will let my hon. Friend know when information is available.

    CANTONMENT MAGISTRATES (PENSIONS).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, considering that the Indian Cantonments Bill has been passed into law, he can state whether, under the changed conditions of service, Indian Army officers in civil employment as cantonment magistrates will now be permitted to retire on proportionate pensions the same as other officers in similar positions?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The answer is in the negative. The changes in the conditions of service of members of the present Cantonment Magistrates Department which are provided for in the Cantonments Bill are not similar to the changes in the conditions of service of those officers who are eligible for retirement on proportionate pensions.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? The last Government said it would receive consideration, and I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the circumstances are very similar.
    Mr. RICHARDS: The hon. and gallant Member is under some misapprehension. I think the position in the two cases is entirely different.
    Sir C. YATE: Not at all.

    DIVORCE LAW.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the decision of a full bench of the High Court in Lahore, delivered last month, to the effect that, though Indian Judges had jurisdiction to try divorce cases between British subjects domiciled in Great Britain, they thought that probably the English Court would not recognise their decree; and what steps have been taken, or are to be taken, to amend the law of divorce in India as regards British subjects with a British domicile owing to a decree of divorce granted by a High Court in India having been declared invalid in 1921 by the President of the Probate, Admiralty, and Divorce Division in England on the ground that the Indian Court possessed no jurisdiction?
    Mr. RICHARDS: As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, steps were taken in 1921 by legislation in this Parliament to validate past and pending Indian decrees affected by the President's judgment referred to, and so long ago as July, 1921, my Noble Friend's predecessor initiated consultation with the Government of India as to the possibility of amending the law, and, if so, in what direction. The inquiry is still proceeding, but, while recognising fully its importance, I cannot hold out hopes of an early solution, in view of the complexity and the controversial nature of the questions involved. The Lahore High Court's judgment creates no new situation.
    Sir C. YATE: Has the hon. Gentleman not seen the cases that are now up before the Courts in India, and the great complications that may arise if some decision is not speedily arrived at?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I appreciate that, but the difficulty is not merely the assimilation of the decrees given in India with the laws of this country, but the assimilation throughout the Empire. That raises very big and difficult questions.

    PRISON ACCOMMODATION (EUROPEANS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any special prisons are maintained in India for European civilian or military prisoners; if so, how many and where they are situated; and whether Europeans under punishment are detained in the same prisons as natives of India?
    Mr. RICHARDS: No special prisons are maintained in India for the relatively small number of European prisoners sentenced under the ordinary criminal law, but it is the practice in the various provinces to arrange for their confinement in the more central gaols, or special sections of gaols, where they can receive separate and suitable accommodation. British officers and soldiers sentenced to imprisonment by courts-martial for purely military offences are, if they remain in India, kept in military prisons or detention barracks. There is a combined military prison and detention barrack at Poona, and detention barracks at Aden, Lucknow, Quetta, Trimulgherry and Sialkote. It is customary to transfer military prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment or detention exceeding 12 months to a prison or detention barracks in the United Kingdom as soon as practicable.

    PENSIONED OFFICERS.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of pensioned officers of the Indian services, other than members of the Indian Civil Service, who retired previous to 23rd July, 1913?
    Mr. RICHARDS: It is not altogether clear to what the question refers, but I presume the hon. Member is referring to pensioners belonging to what are usually known as the uncovenanted services who retired before 23rd July, 1913, on a pension of Rs.5,000 a year or over and who are still alive. Those drawing pensions in this country number 376. I have no information as to the number drawing pension in India.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the case of these 300 odd officers, members of the uncovenanted services, be taken into consideration?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I understand that it has.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman try again, and reconsider that point?

    RAILWAY MATERIAL (ORDERS).
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the tender forms issued by the Indian Store Department contain references to the King's Roll, and that British tenderers are asked for an assurance that their names are on that roll; and will he draw the attention of the High Commissioner of India to the incompatibility of those instructions with the placing of orders for locomotives with Germany?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I do not agree that any incompatibility such as is suggested exists. When tenders are approximately equal in price, the practice of the High Commissioner is to give a preference to a firm on the King's Roll over one that is not. But in the case to which the hon. and gallant Member refers the tender of the German firm was 25 per cent. below that of the lowest British tender, and the High Commissioner was, as I explained last week, bound to follow his instructions to purchase in the best market.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the High Commissioner to the great unemployment that exists at present in the iron and steel industries in this country?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The attention of the High Commissioner has been drawn to that fact.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: May we take it that all firms who are invited to tender are on the King's Roll?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I do not think that that follows at all.

    CONSTITUTION (REFORM).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the desirability of appointing a Commission to examine the working of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms with a view to seeing what greater powers and what extensions of the franchise are immediately possible?
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India has been called to the fact that a Resolution has been passed in the Legislative Assembly at Delhi asking that a round-table conference should take place between representatives of the British Government and Indian Nationalists for the purpose of discussing what further measures of reform could be undertaken in order to establish peace in India; and whether His Majesty's Government and the Government of India will give favourable consideration to this proposal?
    Mr. RICHARDS: This question is receiving the most serious consideration, and if the hon. Members will repeat their questions at a later date, I hope to be in a position to give them an answer.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Are we to understand that the Government have reversed the policy of the Act of 1919 and propose to speed up the time when a revision of the constitution should take place, instead of at the end of 10 years?
    Mr. RICHARDS: That is not the inference to be drawn from my reply. What I replied was that the Government is seriously considering the whole position in India at the moment.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the Government consider the desirability of allowing the House to discuss the question of the appointment of a Royal Commission, should the Government decide to appoint a Royal Commission, before the announcement is actually made, in view of the great importance of the matter?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I will certainly make that representation to my Noble Friend.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the electorate at present represents only 2 per cent. of the wishes of the people of India?
    Mr. RICHARDS: Yes; that is one of the great difficulties.

    GOVERNMENT STATEMENT.
    Mr. HOPE SIMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention to make a statement on Indian affairs in this House concurrently with the statement
    8
    which it is understood will be made by the Secretary of State for India in another place?
    Mr. MILNEasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to make a statement on India in this House; and, if so, whether he can give a date when the statement will be made?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): The Secretary of State for India is not making a special statement on this subject, but is only replying to a question which had been addressed to him in another place. As the hon. Members are aware, answers to questions in another place are given in a fuller and more lengthy form than is customary in this House. If, however, there is a general desire for a discussion on Indian affairs in this House, arrangements can be made for the consideration of the India Office Vote in Committee of Supply if representations are made through the usual channels. I should add that the situation in India is not escaping our notice, and is receiving the constant attention of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. SIMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit the House to discuss this question before any orders are issued by the India Office to India?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible for me to give that pledge, because from day to day the Government, as my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, is in communication with the Government of India; but, if a discussion is required, the method of getting it is as is indicated in my answer.
    Mr. SIMPSON: I am sorry to press this matter, but would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if there is a question of a re-examination of the Act of 1919, orders on that point shall not be issued before discussion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is another point. Certainly no large departure of policy like that could possibly be inaugurated without its being first reported to this House.

    FIGHTING IN PUNJAB.
    Mr. SIMPSON(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the engagement between Akali Sikhs and

    9
    troops of the Nabha State in the Punjab, which occurred on Friday last, and in which 14 Sikhs were killed and 34 wounded; whether it is true that Dr. Kichlu has been arrested in connection with this outbreak; and whether in view of its grave character the Prime Minister can give any further information.
    Mr. RICHARDS: Such information as we have received has already been published in the Press, and I have at present nothing to add. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the latest telegram received from the Government of India, which embodies the two Press communiqués issued in India.
    Mr. SIMPSON: Was the officer in command of the troops a British or a native officer, and were the troops Imperial Service or native troops?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the telegram which the hon. Gentleman is sending to the hon. Member opposite has not been published in the Press, will he kindly circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. RICHARDS: Yes.
    Following is copy of the telegram referred to:
    From VICEROY, Home Department, to SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA.
    (Dated Delhi, 23rd February, 1924.)
    (Received 23rd February, 1924.)
    628–3—P. Please refer to my telegram in Home Department, S—233—P. of 22nd February. Following two communiques have been issued:
    First communique. Begins—The recent order issued by the Administrator of Nabha State regarding the conditions of admission to Garudwara at Jaito has been disregarded by Akalis in spite of frequent intimations, and Jatha of 500 left Bargari in Faridkot State shortly after noon yesterday and advanced on Jaito, screened by a body of some 6,000 other Akalis who moved on a 600 yard front in great depth, armed with lathis, chavis, spears, and firearms. The Administrator with 5 state officials advanced about 100 yards to meet Akalis, gave them full warning and called on them to halt and explained that if they did not comply with his orders he would be compelled to open fire. This warning was utterly disregarded by Akalis, who hotly pursued Administrator and his party. At this point a Nabha villager received a wound from a bullet fired by Akalis. The Administrator gave orders to fire 3 rounds buckshot at leaders who were within a few
    10
    yards. The lines of Akalis then swerved to their right where a platoon of Nabha infantry was in position. Order to fire 3 rounds controlled fire with service ammunition was given by Administrator. Akalis and Jatha then made for small outlying Gurudwara called Tibbi Sahih and one squadron of cavalry moved over to try and head them off. The Akalis at this moment increased their fire and delivered determined attacks led by a mounted Akali who gave orders in English to his comrades to charge. Fire from 10 dismounted cavalry checked the Akalis, but Jatha advanced under Tibbi Sahih, while about 2,000 Akalis swarmed into Tibbi Sahih Gurudwara. The remainder were already moving off and party of 2,000 gradually broke up, left room (sic? leaving) 100 who are now under arrest at Jaito. Medical assistance was promptly rendered to the wounded. After the firing, Doctor Kitchloo and Professor Gidwani arrived on the scene in a motor, and were taken into custody. Total casualties so far ascertained are 14 dead and 34 wounded. The Jatha itself was not fired upon and no member of it was injured. Great care was taken not to interfere with the Granth Sahib which has been deposited with due respect in Dharmsala. A special enquiry by a magistrate has been ordered. Ends.
    Second communique. Begins—In this morning's communique about the occurrence at Jaito, it was stated no member of the Jatha was injured. A later report indicates that this statement requires correction. A portion of the Jatha got mixed up with the crowd of other Akalis, and 4 of them were killed and 12 wounded. It is confirmed that the Jatha, as such, was not fired upon. Ends.

    INDIAN SUBJECTS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India and the Government of India has been drawn to the unrest prevailing among the Indian population in South Africa and in India by reason of the promotion by the Government of the Union of South Africa of the Class Areas Bill in their legislative assembly, providing for the selective segregation in non-white areas within municipalities of His Majesty's Indian subjects; and whether representations have been made thereon to the Government of the Union of South Africa, either by the Government of India or by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Government of India have addressed representations to the Government of the Union of South Africa regarding segregation, and may wish to

    11
    address further representations to that Government regarding the actual provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. E. BROWN: Arising out of the inaudibility of the hon. Gentleman's answers, will the India Office take steps to get a loud speaker?

  PALESTINE (RUTENBURG CONCESSION).
  Mr. BECKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Rutenburg concessionaires are developing the water power on the River Jordan, Palestine; is any electrical energy being produced by water power; are the internal combustion engines still supplying the energy for the electrical power; if the water power is not being developed, will he consider cancelling the concession given to Herr Rutenburg; and has he received any notification from the municipality of Jaffa protesting against the Palestine Government order compelling them to allow the Rutenburg Company to erect electric light standards in the streets?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas)I understand that the works required to enable electrical energy to be obtained from the water power of the Jordan will be commenced very shortly. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative, and the answer to the second, fourth, and fifth parts in the negative.
  Mr. BECKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that pressure is brought to bear on the Rutenburg Company to place in this country all orders for water turbines or dynamos which may be required?
  Mr. THOMAS: The general policy of the Government in that connection is that I have taken many steps to ensure orders in this country, and I intend to follow that policy. But to commit oneself to that policy, regardless of any other consideration, would be to subject one to blackmail, and that I cannot allow.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability—I do not press for an I immediate answer—as the House has
  12
  heard nothing of this concession now for over 18 months, of calling for a full report on the mode in which it has been carried out?
  Mr. THOMAS: Certainly, yes.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Was any action taken by the late Government to call for a report on this concession?
  Mr. THOMAS: That is a question which might equally be addressed to someone else.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has come to any decision upon the functions and scope of the Imperial Economic Committee; and whether he has made any selection of British representatives?
  Mr. THOMAS: After careful consideration, His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion, particularly in view of the fact that the Imperial Economic Conference itself did not reach unanimity on the subject, that a standing Economic Committee with general terms of reference would not really assist co-operation between the Governments. They feel that, in all the circumstances, they cannot support adoption of the recommendation.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Does that mean the Imperial Economic Committee recommended by the Imperial Conference is dropped?
  Mr. THOMAS: As far as the answer I have given, yes; and for the reasons that I have already stated.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any communications from the Dominions in this regard, and whether he is doing this after consultation with the Dominions?
  Mr. THOMAS: The supplementary question is, Did we get into touch with the Dominions? The obvious answer is that we have had no time following the questions to get in touch with anybody. I have given the answer, which was arrived at after full consideration of all the facts.
  Earl WINTERTON: As a member of the Conference in question, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that

  13
  the decision to appoint the Committee was only come to after the most careful consideration, and does he not think this matter is covered by the pledge already given, I think, by the Prime Minister, that the whole of these matters would be subject to discussion in the House?
  Mr. THOMAS: Clearly the answer to the latter part of the question is, yes. It will come before the House of Commons. But, on the other hand, no one knows better than my right hon. Friend that Canada not only opposed, but gave very cogent reasons for their opposition, and that was in the mind of the Cabinet when they arrived at this decision.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Then before the right hon. Gentleman comes to a final decision on this matter, will he communicate with the other Dominions and ascertain their views?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put down a further question.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand the Government have no objection to the setting up of ad hoc economic committees of an imperial character, and that it is merely the general committees, to which Canada objected, which they do not want to set up?
  Mr. THOMAS: I should like notice of that, because it would be unfair to assume that the Government did not object to ad hoc committees. There are objections even to them. As I have already explained, there will be further discussion on the general question arising out of the Economic Conference.

  CHINA (OUTRAGES ON EUROPEANS).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement in regard to the protracted negotiations between the diplomatic body and China concerning the policing of the railways and the kidnapping of white men and women?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Chinese Government have assured the foreign representatives at Pekin that they regard the whole matter of railway policing and protection as an urgent
  14
  problem of China's internal administration, and are fully conscious of their responsibility for a practical solution, and it is understood that they have already taken steps to re-organise the railway police force. As regards the general question of the protection of foreigners against brigandage, the Chinese Government have despatched renewed orders to provincial authorities to redouble their efforts in the prosecution of this essential duty, and the matter was made the subject of especial reference by the President in his inaugural address on 10th October last.

  AMERICAN CONSULATE, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.
  Sir GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to reopen the American Consulate at Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and if anything has been done to remove the present deadlock?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are naturally most anxious to see this question settled, and have been awaiting a favourable opportunity for entering upon discussions with the United States Government.
  Sir G. DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the length of time that this consulate has been closed? Does he know that this question has been asked in reference to this several times during the last two years, and is he aware that the people of Newcastle have to go to Hull to transact business?

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH AMBASSADOR.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an Ambassador to represent His Majesty the King of Italy has been appointed to Moscow; whether a British Ambassador has yet been appointed; and, if so, who is he and when will he take up his duties in Russia?
    Mr. MILLSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Italian Ambassador to Russia, M. Manzoni, has already arrived in Moscow

    15
    and that a Russo-Italian Chamber of Commerce is being set up in Moscow; and whether, under the circumstances, His Majesty's Government will proceed immediately to appoint a British Ambassador to Moscow?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that Count Manzoni has arrived at Moscow as Italian Ambassador. I have no official information as to the establishment of a Russo-Italian Chamber of Commerce. The question of the appointment of the British Ambassador to Moscow, which was dealt with in the note addressed to the Soviet Government by Mr. Hodgson, will be taken up in due time.

    BRITISH TREATIES.
    Mr. LESSINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state which were the Treaties in force between Great Britain and Russia, before the Revolution of 1917, which have not lapsed by denunciation or become obsolete before that date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Erdington on 14th February, to which I have nothing to add. I regret that, owing to an oversight, the list of Treaties mentioned in it was not circulated at the time, but I will circulate it with my present reply.
    The list of Treaties in as follows:
    I.—Bilateral Treaties and Conventions.

    Treaty.—Marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh with Her Imperial Highness the Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrawno of Russia. St. Petersburg. 22nd January, 1874.

    Declaration.—Estates of Deceased Seamen. London. 9th August, 1880.

    Declaration.—Tonnage Measurement. London. 9th June, 1882.

    Protocol.—Afghan Frontier. London. 10th September, 1885.

    Treaty.—Surrender of Fugitive Criminals. London. 24th November, 1886.

    Protocol.—North-western Frontier of Afghanistan. St. Petersburg. 22nd July, 1887.

    Notes.—Afghan Boundary. St. Petersburg. 8th-20th June, 1888.

    16

    Protocol.—Water Rights in Kushk Valley. 22nd August to 3rd September, 1893.

    Notes.—Seal Fishery. North Pacific Ocean. St. Petersburg. 12th May, 1893 to 10th January, 1894.

    Agreement.—Spheres of Influence in the Region of the Pamirs. London. 11th March, 1895.

    Agreement.—Commercial Relations between Russia and Zanzibar. London. 24th August, 1896.

    Notes.—Railway Interests in China. St. Petersburg. 28th April, 1899.

    Agreement.—Money Orders. London-St. Petersburg. 17th-29th October, 1904.

    Agreement.—Joint Stock Companies, etc. St. Petersburg. 29th December, 1904.

    Exchange of Notes.—Trade marks in China. Peking. 29th-30th October, 1906.

    Note.—Surrender of Russian Extra-territorial Jurisdiction. Zanzibar. St. Petersburg. 5th July, 1907.

    Agreement.—Meshed-Seistan and Meshed-Tehran Telegraph Lines. St. Petersburg. 31st August, 1907.

    Convention. Affairs of Persia. Afghanistan and Tibet. St. Petersburg. 31st August, 1907.

    Exchange of Notes.—Protection of Patents and Trade-marks. Morocco, Tangier. 9th-11th October, 1908.

    Notes.—Scientific Missions to Tibet. St. Petersburg. 23rd September, 1910–9th January, 1911.

    Notes.—(United Kingdom, Russia, Persia.) Financial Assistance to Persia. 18th February-20th March, 1912.

    Notes.—Shatt-al-Arab Riverain Commission. St. Petersburg. 23rd-29th April, 1914.

    Agreement.—British Subjects and Property; Chinese Eastern Railway Area. Harbin. 30th April, 1914.

    Notes.—British Subjects and Property; Chinese Eastern Railway Area. Peking. 9th December, 1914.

    Agreement.—Waiver of Consular Fees. Certificates of Origin. Petrograd. 16th July, 1915.

    Agreement.—Military Service, European War. Petrograd. 16th July, 1917.

    Agreement.—Exchange of Prisoners. Copenhagen. 12th February, 1920.

    Agreement.—Trade. London. 16th March, 1921.

    II.—Multilateral Treaties, etc.

    Treaty of Paris.—30th May, 1814.

    Treaty of Vienna.—9th June, 1815.

    Treaty.—Neutrality of Switzerland. Paris. 20th November, 1815.

    Treaty of Paris.—Peace with France. 20th November, 1815.

    Treaty of Frankfort.—20th July, 1819.

    Treaty.—Pacification of Greece. London. 6th July, 1827.

    Treaty.—Separation of Belgium from Holland. 15th November, 1831.

    Convention.—Belgic Fortresses. London. 14th December, 1831.

    Treaty (London).—Sovereignty of Greece. 7th May, 1832.

    Arrangement re Boundaries of Greece.—Constantinople. 21st July, 1832.

    Explanatory Act.—Sovereignty of Greece. London. 30th April, 1833.

    Treaty.—Separation of Belgium and Holland. London. 19th April, 1839.

    Convention respecting Bosphorus and Dardanelles. London. 13th July, 1841.

    Treaty.—Danish Succession. London. 8th May, 1852.

    Treaty.—Succession to Throne of Greece. London. 20th November, 1852.

    Treaty of Paris (articles 10, 13 and 14 abrogated by Treaty of 13th March, 1871). Peace, Black Sea, etc. 30th March, 1856.

    Declaration.—Maritime Law. Paris. 16th April, 1856.

    Treaty.—Sound Dues. Copenhagen. 14th March, 1857

    Treaty.—Neuchâtel. Paris. 26th May, 1857.

    Protocol.—Lebanon. Pera. 9th June, 1861.

    Treaty.—Stadt Toll. Hanover. 22nd June, 1861.

    Declaration.—Throne of Greece. London. 4th December, 1862.

    Treaty.—Accession of Prince William of Denmark to Throne of Greece. London. 13th July, 1863.

    Treaty.—Scheldt Toll. Brussels. 16th July, 1863.

    Treaty.—Ionian Islands. London. 14th November, 1863.

    Treaty.—Union of Ionian Islands to Greece. London. 29th March, 1864.

    Convention.*—Wounded in War. Geneva. 22nd August, 1864.

    * Russia acceded, 22nd May, 1867.

    Protocol.—Lebanon. Constantinople. 6th September, 1864.

    Convention.*—Cape Spartel Lighthouse. Tangier. 31st May, 1865.

    Public Act.—Danube Navigation. Galatz. 2nd November, 1865.

    Protocol.—Lebanon. Kanlidja. 27th July, 1868.

    Declaration.—Explosive Projectiles. St. Petersburg. 11th December, 1868.

    Treaty.—Black Sea, etc. London. 13th March, 1871.

    Protocol.—Lebanon. Constantinople. 22nd April, 1873.

    Protocol.—Rules of Military Warfare. Brussels. 27th August, 1874.

    Convention.—Telegraphs. St. Petersburg. July, 1875.

    Treaty.—Affairs in the East. Berlin. 13th July, 1878.

    Act.—Turco-Serbian Boundary. Belgrade. 19th August, 1879.

    Protocol.—Turco-Montenegrin Boundary. Constantinople. 18th April, 1880.

    Act.—Russo-Turkish Frontier in Asia. Kara-Kilissa. 11th August, 1880.

    Protocol.—Greece and Montenegro. Constantinople. 21st September, 1880.

    Convention.—Tuico-Greek Boundary. Constantinople. 24th May, 1881.

    Additional Act.—Danube Navigation. Galatz. 28th May, 1881.

    Protocol—Affairs of Egypt. Therapia. 25th June, 1882.

    Treaty.—Danube Navigation. London. 10th March, 1883.

    Convention—Submarine Cables. Paris. 14th March, 1884.

    General Act.—Congo, etc. Berlin. 26th February, 1885.

    Declaration.—Finances of Egypt. London. 17th March, 1885.

    Convention.—Finances of Egypt. London. 18th March, 1885.

    Declaration.—Egyptian Loan. London. 25th July, 1885.

    Declaration.—Finances of Egypt. London. 16th October, 1885.

    Declaration.—Submarine Cables. Paris. 1st December, 1886.

    Protocol.—Submarine Cables. Paris. 7th July, 1887.

    Convention.—Suez Canal. Constantinople. 29th October, 1888.

    Final Act.—Marine Conference. Washington. 31st December, 1889.

    General Act.—Slave Trade, Arms, etc. Brussels. 2nd July, 1890.

    * Russia acceded, 31st May, 1899.

    Convention.—Publication of Customs Tariffs. Brussels. 5th July, 1890.

    Convention.—Greek Loan. 29th March, 1898.

    Convention.—Greek Loan. Paris. 29th March, 1898.

    Declaration.—Expanding Bullets. The Hague. 29th July, 1899.

    Convention.—Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The Hague. 29th July, 1899.

    Convention.—Laws and Customs of War by Land. The Hague. 29th July, 1899.

    Declaration.—Asphyxiating Gases. The Hague. 29th July, 1899.

    Convention.—Application of Geneva Convention to Maritime Warfare. The Hague. 29th July, 1899.

    Final Act.—Peace Conference. The Hague. 29th July, 1899.

    Final Protocol.—Foreign Powers and China. 7th September, 1901.

    Regulations.—Taxes in Morocco. Tangier. 23rd November, 1903.

    Convention.—International Sanitary. Paris. 3rd December, 1903.

    Arrangement.—White Slave Traffic. Paris. 18th May, 1904.

    Convention.—International Agricultural Institute. Rome. 7th June, 1905.

    General Act.—Affairs of Morocco. Algeciras. 7th April, 1906.

    Agreement and Protocol.*—Letters, & c., of Declared Value. Rome. 26th May, 1906.

    Convention.—International Postal Union. Rome. 26th May, 1906.

    Convention.—Wounded in War. Geneva. 6th June, 1906.

    Convention.—Liquor Traffic in Africa. Brussels. 3rd November, 1906.

    Agreement.—Unification of Pharmacopœial Formula for Potent Drugs. Brussels. 29th November, 1906.

    Protocol.—Turkish Customs Duties. Constantinople. 25th April, 1907.

    Protocol—Accession of Non-Signatory Powers, Convention, 29th July, 1899. Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The Hague. 14th June, 1907.

    Convention.—Limitation of Employment of Force. Recovery of Contract Debts. The Hague. 18th October, 1907.

    * Ceases to be in force from date of coming into operation of Convention of 20th November, 1920.

    Convention.—Opening of Hostilities. The Hague. 18th October, 1907.

    Convention.—Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18th October, 1907.

    Convention.—Status of Enemy Merchant Vessels at Outbreak of Hostilities. The Hague. 18th October, 1907.

    Convention.—Conversion of Merchant Vessels into Warships. The Hague. 18th October, 1907.

    Convention.—Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War. The Hague. 18th October, 1907.

    Final Act.—Second Peace Conference. The Hague. 18th October, 1907.

    Treaty.—Independence and Integrity of Norway. Christiania. 2nd November, 1907.

    Agreement.—International Public Health Office. Rome. 9th December, 1907.

    Regulations.—Telegraphic. Iisbon. 11th June, 1908.

    Convention.—Circulation of Motor Vehicles. Paris. 11th October, 1909.

    Agreement.—Obscene Publications. Paris. 4th May, 1910.

    Convention.—White Slave Traffic. Paris. 4th May, 1910.

    Declaration.—Amending Declaration annexed to Brussels Act, 1890. Brussels. 15th June, 1910.

    Convention.—Protection of Fur Seals, North Pacific Ocean. Washington. 7th July, 1911.

    Protocol.—Ratification of Convention, 1911. Preservation of Fur Seals. Washington. 12th December, 1911.

    *Convention.—Sanitary. Paris. 17th January, 1912.

    *Convention.—Opium. The Hague. 23rd January, 1912.

    Convention.—International Telegraphs. Lisbon. 1912.

    Convention.—Radiotelegraphs. London. 5th July, 1912.

    Protocol.—Abolition. Foreign Settlements. Choosen. Seoul. 21st April, 1913.

    Final Protocol.—Second International Opium Conference. The Hague. 9th July, 1913.

    Protocol.—Turco-Pevsian Frontier Delimitation. Constantinople. 4th-17th November, 1913.

    Convention.—Safety of Life at Sea. London. 20th January, 1914.

    * Not ratified by Russia.

    Final Protocol—Third International Opium Conference. The Hague. 25th June, 1914.

    Declaration.—(United Kingdom, France and Russia.) Non-conclusion of Separate Peace, European War. London. 5th September, 1914.

    Accession of Russia.—Anglo-French Convention, 1914. Prizes captured in European War. London. 5th March, 1915.

    Agreement.—Italian Co-operation, European War. London. 26th April, 1915.

    Declaration.—(United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan, Russia.) Non-conclusion of Separate Peace, European War. London. 30th November, 1915.

    Notes.—Modification of Anglo-French Convention, 1914. Prizes captured in European War. 31st May, 1915, to 26th October, 1916.

    BRITISH PRESS CORRESPONDENTS.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if British Press correspondents are permitted to reside at Moscow and send to British newspapers uncensored messages?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Provided that they have obtained the necessary visa and fulfil the regulations, British Press correspondents are allowed to reside at Moscow. I am without information about the Press censorship, if any, which is imposed on foreign correspondents.
    Mr. LAMBERT: What are the regulations? Can the Prime Minister tell us?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend will communicate with me privately, I will put them at his disposal as far as I can.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: How many British papers have applied already for representation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that question had better be put down.

    BRITISH INTERVENTION.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether any documents exist showing the extent and cost of the British intervention in the civil war in Russia following the revolution; whether the expenditure by the
    22
    War Office, Foreign Office, Air Ministry, Admiralty, and India Office, in this intervention, including subsidies to insurrectionary leaders and expenditure of secret service moneys, has been accounted for apart from the normal expenditure of these Departments and services; and whether papers can be laid upon the Table of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the particulars given in Command Paper 772 of 1920, to which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reconsider the advisability of having an inquiry into the whole of this business, which has never yet been inquired into?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman in any way question the term "insurrectionary leaders," seeing that there has been no insurrection in Russia since 1917?

    NEAR EASTERN REPUBLICS.
    Major Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Prime Minister whether, in any agreement which may be reached between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the union of Socialist Soviet Republics, he will insist that the independence of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia shall be recognised and their democratic Governments restored?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member in reply to his supplementary question on 18th February.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will not the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to secure the withdrawal of the Red Armies so that there may be an opportunity of some form of home rule?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am always glad to use my influence for any legitimate purpose.
    Dr. SPERO: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to bring about religious tolerance in the countries in question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must not discuss the internal affairs of foreign countries.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    AMBASSADORS' CONFERENCE (OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS).
    Mr. JOHN HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the principal outstanding questions now being dealt with by the Ambassadors' Conference; and if he can give any indication as to the time when they expect to complete their task?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Ambassadors' Conference was created for the purpose of co-ordinating the action of the Allied Governments in regard to questions arising out of the interpretation and execution of the Treaties of Peace. It is not possible at this stage to indicate any date by which such questions are likely to be concluded. Among the principal matters actually engaging the attention of the Conference, I may mention the status of the Memel territory; military control in Germany and the other ex-enemy States; Clearing Office payments; differential treatment and taxation of allied nationals in Germany; payment of the costs of the armies of occupation, Rhineland High Commission and Commissions of Control; reports and expenses of Boundary Commissions. But this list must not be regarded as in any way exhaustive.
    Mr. MOSLEY: May we assume, since the unification effected by my right hon. Friend, that divergent policies will no longer be pursued by the Ambassadors' Conference and the League of Nations as were pursued under the recent Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As my hon. Friend knows, I am doing everything I possibly can to put an end to those conflicting decisions come to by the two authorities. As I would have pointed out in reply to a question which was not allowed to be put, I hope the hon. Member will remember that we have been something less than a month in office.
    Captain BERKELEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as far as possible, endeavour to get the tasks of the Ambassadors' Conference transferred to the Council of the League?

    TURKEY (STRAITS CONVENTION)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir EDWARD GRIGGasked the Secretary of State
    24
    for Foreign Affairs whether the obligations contained in the Straits Convention were discussed at the recent Imperial Conference; and whether he can now give the House any information upon the attitude of the Dominions towards the absolute assurance regarding her future security given to Turkey, according to Lord Curzon's statement, under Article 18 of that Convention?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the first part of the question, I will remind the hon. and gallant Member that it was decided at the Imperial Conference that no particulars of its proceedings should be made public without the consent of the Conference as a whole. I regret that I can, therefore, give him no information beyond what is contained in the published proceedings. As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which was given him on the 20th instant. All the instruments which together form the peace settlement with Turkey have been laid before the Dominion Governments.
    Sir E. GRIGG: Are we to understand that the House is to have no information whatever about the attitude of the Dominions towards the Straits Convention when it is discussed in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question was as regards the giving of information. If my hon. and gallant Friend will repeat the question when we have got the reply of the Dominions, I shall be able to inform him. Our intention is to give the House all possible information that we can lay before it.
    Sir E. GRIGGasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Government have taken note of the statement made by Lord Curzon to Ismet Pasha at Lausanne, that, under the Straits Convention annexed to the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey will receive an absolute assurance regarding her future security from Great Britain and three other Powers (Official Report of Lausanne Conference, p. 268); and whether the Committee of Imperial Defence have considered the military and other liabilities which that assurance may entail;
    (2) whether the assent of Parliament is to be asked to the ratification of the

    25
    Straits Convention, which may at some future time involve the people of this country in a moral obligation to participate in a Balkan or Russo-Turkish war, without opportunity being given for a separate discussion of the Convention, adequate to its importance, in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The specific guarantee to which the hon. and gallant Member no doubt refers is that contained in Article 18 of the Straits Convention of 24th July, 1923, and runs as follows:
    "The High Contracting Parties, desiring to secure that the demilitarisation of the Straits and of the contiguous zones shall not constitute an unjustifiable danger to the military security of Turkey, and that no act of war should imperil the freedom of the Straits or the safety of the demilitarised zones, agree as follows:
    "Should the freedom of navigation of the Straits or the security of the demilitarised zones be imperilled by a violation of the provisions relating to freedom of passage, or by a surprise attack or some act of war or threat of war, the High Contracting Parties, and in any case Prance, Great Britain, Italy and Japan, acting in conjunction, will meet such violation, attack, or other act of war or threat of war by all the means that the Council of the League of Nations may decide for this purpose."
    In my view, neither Lord Curzon's statement of the 19th December nor any of the other statements made in the course of the lengthy discussions which preceded the signature of the Convention in any way modify or extend the scope of this guarantee, which applies solely to such dangers to Turkish security as may arise in the area of the Straits from a violation of the provisions of the Straits Convention. I regret that I can give no information as to the nature of the subjects discussed by the Committee of Imperial Defence, the proceedings of which, obviously, cannot be made public.
    Sir E. GRIGG: Does the Prime Minister endorse Lord Curzon's interpretation of that Article, Lord Curzon's statement having been made at the Lausanne Conference as an interpretation of the Article which the Prime Minister has read out?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think notice should be given of that question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the guarantee which the Prime Minister has just quoted is a joint guarantee, and not a joint and several guarantee?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That, again, is a question which should be put down.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    ARMENIAN REFUGEES (SETTLEMENT).
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Council of the League of Nations has under consideration a proposal for the settlement of 50,000 Armenian refugees in the Erivan Republic, and that towards the expenditure involved the French Government has just agreed to give the sum of 335,000 French francs; and whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to consider giving any financial assistance to this project?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the last part of the question, no formal application from the League for financial assistance for this particular project has yet been received. I must say, however, that the amount already spent by His Majesty's Government on refugees in the Near East is no large that I cannot hold out the hope that any such application would be favourably entertained.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an international labour palace is being erected at Geneva to house the International Labour Bureau of the League of Nations; whether the estimated cost of this building is £120,000; and what proportion of this cost is being borne by Great Britain and by other Powers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have been asked to reply. Owing to the expiration in June, 1925, of the lease of the premises of the International Labour Office, Geneva, and to the unsuitability of the present accommodation, the 1922 Assembly of the League authorised the erection of a new building estimated to cost 3,000,000 Swiss francs, on a more convenient site presented to the League by the Swiss Confederation. Arrangements were made to spread the incidence of expenditure over

    27
    a period of not less than five years, as from 1925, so that the total contribution to be attributable to States members for the new building would not exceed 600,000 francs per annum. Of this sum, the portion borne by Great Britain is approximately one-tenth, or £2,400 per annum. May I also add that the description in the question of the building is slightly misleading to those who know what the object of the building is? I should be very happy to show my hon. Friend a copy of the plan showing the plain, unpretentious building it is proposed to put up.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the £120,000 correct or not?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: What is the amount annually paid for the building which is now being utilised?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I must, I think, have notice of that question.

  GERMANY (IMPORT LICENCES).
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that injury to British trade is caused by the necessity of securing import licences for introducing certain articles into Germany, and by the German tariffs generally; and whether, in the event of his proposing to effect any redaction in the total obligations of the German Government to this country, he will consider the possibility of securing from the German Government a promise to terminate the licence system and to abolish or reduce the tariffs on British goods?
  Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. I fully realise that import restrictions and Customs duties are an impediment to our exports, but the German Government have recently extended considerably the list of goods not subject to licence requirements. I do not think that it would be desirable to make any settlement of the problem of German reparations dependent on action being taken by the German Government in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can my hon. Friend give us any hope that the licensing system will, before long, be put an end to?
  Mr. LUNN: I think, if my hon. Friend looks at the Board of Trade Journals for the 17th January and the 14th February, he will see that there has been a large extension, and possibly there will be a larger one in the near future.

  SUDAN.

    COTTON PRODUCTION.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a Report issued, more than a year ago, by M. Dupuis, of the Irrigation Department in Egypt, in which attention is drawn to the vital importance of securing the safety of the waters of the White Nile for the purpose of Sudanese cotton production; whether the British Government has been negotiating with the Abyssinian Government for certain concessions on behalf of British interests for the control of the waters of Lake Tana where the White Nile rises; and if he is able to state what are the results of these negotiations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative; the answer to the last part is in the negative. I assume that by a slip the hon. Member refers to the Blue and not the White Nile.

  JUBALAND.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state who was first responsible for linking up the question of the settlement of the Jubaland dispute with that of the Dodecanese; and whether, seeing that the cession of these islands is a matter for arrangement between Greece and Italy, he will consider the separation of these two questions in future with a view to the immediate settlement of the Jubaland question with Italy?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I find that in concluding with the Italian Government the agreement of April, 1920, regarding Jubaland, Lord Milner made a written reservation in the sense that this agreement could only become effective as part of the general settlement of all the issues raised at the Peace Conference. These issues, as the Italian Government have often been reminded, embrace the

  29
  question of the Dodecanese, and the Italian Government have for their part recognised that the Treaty which they concluded with Greece on 10th August, 1920, was the result of agreement between the Allies, and that the settlement of the Dodecanese question is not only the concern of Italy and Greece. The hon. and gallant Member must remember that the inhabitants of these islands ethnologically belong to Greece, and that their continued severance from that country is hardly conducive to that general tranquillity which His Majesty's Government have so much at heart. I have been unable as yet to devote time, to a full examination of this intricate matter, but I am now studying the mass of papers that have accumulated round the subject with a view to considering my own policy regarding it.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the old adage Bis dat qui cito dat? The question of Jubaland refers to a promise and debt of honour which we have owed to Italy since 1915, and which we have not yet carried out?
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have the studies of the right hon. Gentleman yet brought him to the point of being able to give me this information: Are the inhabitants of these two parts of the world being consulted in any way as to their future allegiance?
  The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the adage of the hon. and gallant Member I shall remember it when I am reading the papers. My business—and I think that is my only business at the moment—is to see what has been done before and make up my mind from the papers as to what policy I am going to pursue. I shall be glad if I might make an appeal, to hon. Members not to press these things too hardly at the moment, because it is not desirable in reply to supplementary questions to give answers that have not been properly considered.

  EGYPT.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has received any communications from the new Government in Egypt with regard to the future status
  30
  of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, the British military garrison in Egypt, and the responsibilities of the British Government in reference to the protection of foreign residents in Egypt; and whether he will give an undertaking that no change from the policy of previous British Governments in these matters will be effected without Parliament being first informed;
  (2) whether the future relations between His Britannic Majesty and the King of Egypt are to be embodied in a new treaty; and, if so, whether the House of Commons will be given an opportunity of discussing the terms of the treaty before it is ratified by the British Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Egyptian Government have as yet made no communication to me on the subject mentioned by the hon. Member, as regards which His Majesty's present Government regard themselves as bound by the Declaration to Egypt of 28th February, 1922. In the event of the Egyptian Government declaring its readiness to enter into negotiations respecting the future relations between the two countries, and in the event of these negotiations resulting in a treaty, such treaty will be laid before Parliament in accordance with the arrangement which I recently announced.

  PALATINATE (BRITISH CONSUL'S REPORT).
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when we shall get a Report of the visit of our consul to the Palatinate to inquire into conditions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The gist of this Report was given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill). The negotiations on the whole question of the Palatinate, which are still proceeding, might be prejudiced by publication at present and I should prefer to wait until I see if I can report on a complete settlement.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Report will be laid on the Table of the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That informationed is contained in the answer which I have just given. I should prefer to wait

  31
  until the matter is settled before laying the Report. I think if the Report were laid now it would probably do more harm than good, because we have just got beyond the stage of report in our negotiations.

  HONOURS.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the minority Report of the Royal Commission on Honours, signed by the Home Secretary, to the effect that the gravest abuses had not been inquired into and that the recommendations are inadequate to prevent abuses and allay suspicion in the public mind; and whether he proposes to take any action to prevent the grave abuses to which the Home Secretary's Report draws attention?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The matter has not escaped my attention, and I am considering whether, in the crowded state of business, anything further can profitably be done.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to appoint the Committee to advise him with reference to honours?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee was appointed with reference to political honours, and when the need arises, I shall certainly appoint a Committee.

  SCOTLAND.

    CROWN AGENT (EMOLUMENT).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the Crown Agent of Scotland; and what emoluments he receives?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): I have been asked to answer this question. The Crown Agent is in charge of the Crown Office, Edinburgh, the headquarters of the criminal administration in Scotland. He acts as solicitor in all judicial proceedings, civil or criminal, in which the Lord Advocate appears as representing his own Department. He is charged with the collection
    32
    of information for the Lord Advocate on Parliamentary questions, and with the preparation of certain Parliamentary returns. Requests by foreign tribunals for the service of process or the examination of witnesses in Scotland are dealt with by the Crown Agent. He also acts on behalf of the Crown in other miscellaneous business not specially assigned. The salary is £1,300.

    LAW OFFICERS.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Prime Minister whether the appointment of a Lord Advocate and a Solicitor-General for Scotland who are not Members of Parliament is an indication that those positions are to be considered free from political partisanship; and, if so, whether the patronage which has formerly been at the disposal of the Lord Advocate will be placed at the disposal of any other member of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal to the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on the 14th February. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The patronage of the Lord Advocate, as to the extent of which there appears to be much misconception, will not be exercised on party political grounds whilst the present arrangement lasts.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Lord Advocate, ever since he has been in office, has given every one of his jobs to Tories?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the Prime Minister aware that the new Lord Advocate has simply re-appointed the Advocates-Deputy, who were appointed by the last Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that there has been some change in the matter, but the Lord Advocate consulted me before doing so, and, under the circumstances, I agreed that it would be better to let things go on as they were. If I have the opportunity and time I hope to clear out a great deal of the abuses which have gathered round the Scottish legal appointments.

  LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will make provision for the re-establishment of the work of the Land Valuation Department, with a view to completing the land register at the earliest practicable date?
  Mr. ATHOLL ROBERTSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to re-establishing the Land Valuation Department at an early date?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I assume that the hon. Members have in mind the statutory provisions repealed by Section 38 of the Finance Act of last year, under which particulars of sales and of certain leases of land were required to be delivered to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The repeal of those provisions, while it has deprived the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue of a valuable source of information, has not limited the activities nor seriously impaired the efficiency of the Office, the work of which consists of making valuations of land and buildings for various Revenue purposes, and of making valuations and carrying out transactions in land on behalf of various Government Departments and of other bodies where Exchequer funds are involved. The reintroduction of an obligation to present particulars of sales and leases would neither authorise the making, nor provide the necessary material for the completion, of a comprehensive land register. At the same time my right hon. Friend fully recognises the importance of the issues underlying this question and will make it his business to examine them in due course.
  Captain BENN: May we take it that the Budget of this year will re-enact the Sections which were repealed in the Budget of last year?
  Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. and gallant Friend knows very well that I dare not anticipate the Budget statement.

  KING HUSSEIN (NEGOTIATIONS).
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the negotiations with King Hussein?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The negotiations with King Hussein still continue but have made little progress in recent months, and the position remains substantially as described by the late Prime Minister in his reply of the 2nd July to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn).
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that there is any chance of getting these negotiations to a conclusion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We have not forgotten them. We are always pressing them, but the circumstances are a little difficult. I had them under review only the other day.

  ALIENS.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. WARDasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to relax the stringency with which the Aliens Act, 1919, has hitherto been administered?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I have been asked to reply. I think the hon. and gallant Member has in mind not the Act of 1919 but the Aliens Order, 1920, which contains the code of provisions for controlling aliens. Assuming that to be so, my answer is, that my right hon. Friend and myself are watching very closely the administration of this law with a view to preventing more hardship to individual foreigners that is unfortunately inevitable under the Regulations required in the public interests of our own country and our own people.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the hardships involved on British workmen if the stringency of the Act be not maintained?
  Mr. DAVIES: My answer was to that effect.

  AIR TRANSPORT COMPANIES.
  Major ROPNERasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to pay subsidies to air transport companies in the Colonies which are outside the scope of the Imperial Air Transport Company; and whether the Government will make grants to Colonial Governments to assist in the establishment of air lines in the Colonies?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is at present no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to pay subsidies to air transport companies in the Colonies or to make grants to Colonial Governments towards the support of Colonial air lines.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY PASSES).
  Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Prime Minister if he can now state the intentions of the Government regarding the question of free railway passes between the House and the constituencies represented by hon. Members; and if he is aware that while some Members may now reach their constituencies on payment of a few pence other Members are compelled to spend from £5 to £10?
  Captain BERKELEY: Before this question is answered, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it anticipates a question put down by me on Tuesday last. It was postponed at the request of the Minister until to-morrow, and is on the Order Paper for to-morrow.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I cannot interfere with the question being asked.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the fact mentioned in my hon. Friend's question and I regard it as an anomaly that ought to be removed if possible. I am having the subject re-examined, and if my hon. Friend would repeat his question this day fortnight I may be in a position to report some progress.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES).
  Major COHENasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that he at the recent General Election pledged himself to support the proposal of the British Legion for the setting up of a national employment committee to advise upon and recommend to the Government employment schemes of public utility, such committee to be non-party in composition, representative in character, and having purely advisory powers, he will now state when he intends to call into being such committee?
  Mr. COMYNS-CARRasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to adopt the resolution passed by numerous branches of the British Legion urging the immediate setting up of a national employment committee to investigate and to recommend to the Government employment schemes of public utility on a scale commensurate with the present problem of unemployment?
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKINasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to adopt the suggestion of the British Legion and to immediately set up a national employment committee to investigate and to recommend to the Government employment schemes of public utility on a scale commensurate with the present problem of unemployment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on Tuesday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Rawson). As stated therein, the committee referred to is prepared to examine any proposals that may be submitted to it. In this way the Government is dealing with the matter more expeditiously than by the other means.
  Major COHENasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that he, at the time of the General Election, pledged himself to support the policy of the British Legion that in Government and municipal employment and in all schemes for employment financed or controlled by the national or local authorities or guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act ex-service men should be given preference, he will now undertake to secure that in all schemes as above, with the exception of those under the Trade Facilities Act, and for all unskilled labour in schemes set up under the Trade Facilities Act, 75 per cent. of the men to be employed shall be ex-service men?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have already announced that there is to be no change in the arrangement by which 75 per cent. of the men employed on relief works are to be ex-service men. As regards the Trade Facilities Act, I should say that the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee do, in fact, address

  37
  a request to all companies assisted under the Act that they should do everything in their power to observe a 75 per cent. preference for ex-service men.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly look at the last part of the question, where it is suggested that, for all unskilled labour in schemes set up under the Trade Facilities Act, 75 per cent. of the men employed shall be ex-service men? Is that carried out?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that that is covered by the answer I have given, but, if that should not be so, I should assume that the matter is carried out. I shall be very glad to have the question repeated.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases it is impossible to get the 75 per cent. of ex-service men, and that, therefore, other unemployed men cannot be taken on for the work? Can he say what proposals he would make in regard to that?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I may say, as regards the 75 per cent., as much interest is taken in election pledges, that I specially pointed out that circumstances might arise when so many as 75 per cent. of ex-service men could not be got, and that in those circumstances I would keep myself free to employ to the full extent unemployed men who desired to do the work. To that extent I understand that this is being carried out.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in many districts where men were kept at their respective trades in lieu of service in the Army, this regulation acts with exceeding hardship and is causing a great deal of distress among deserving unemployed men, and can he see his way to altering the regulation at the earliest possible moment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Whenever representations of that nature are made, my hon. Friend can rest assured that the Department responsible will take them into full consideration, but it must be clearly understood that the main and guiding pledge is the pledge of 75 per cent., and that all the other cases will be exceptions, necessary in the circumstances, to that.

  LONDON TRAFFIC.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state if the Government intend to bring forward a Bill this Session dealing with London traffic, framed on the lines of the Measure which the late Government promised to introduce last autumn?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government recognise the necessity of securing the better control of London traffic. They are now examining the Bill already prepared, and will produce a Measure without delay.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last part of the question, as to whether he is going to introduce a Bill framed on the lines of the Measure which the late Government promised to introduce last autumn?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government at the present moment are working hard to get agreement on a wider area even than that Bill, but a Bill will be introduced without delay, it will have a Second Reading if the House wishes it, and then it will be sent up to a Committee, when the details can be thrashed out and settled. That, I think, is the best procedure to save time.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman, by "wider area," mean a larger authority, or what does he mean?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry if the words I used were open to any misunderstanding. I mean a larger area of agreement, so that elements that objected to the last Bill might come into the new proposals, in addition to those who agreed to the last Bill.
  Mr. P. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a very strong feeling among a large section of the community that any such authority should be a directly elected body, directly responsible to the public?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think the proposal that I make is the best in the circumstances. We guarantee to produce a Bill, and will move that Bill for Second Reading. The House will carry it or otherwise, and, if carried, it will go upstairs. Then my hon. Friend, and those who object to any of the details of the Bill, can fight it out in Committee; and, when the Bill is agreed to in Committee,

  39
  and comes down to this House, we shall then give it facilities for its further stages.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government, following the policy of the two preceding Governments, rigidly to exclude from service at the Air Ministry, Ministry of Pensions, War Office, and Admiralty, respectively, any permanent or temporary civil servant who was a conscientious objector during the War?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No change has been made in the policy adopted in regard to Civil Service conscientious objectors. This policy is fully explained in the Report of the Select Committee (No. 69 of 1922), of which I am sending the Noble Earl a copy. It will be observed that the approved policy is not quite as stated in the question as it involved the retention in the permanent service of certain conscientious objectors who had complied with all the requirements of the law. The question whether any of the particular men concerned are or will be employed in the Departments mentioned is a matter for the Ministers respectively in charge of those Departments, but in fact I am informed that none are there employed.
  Earl WINTERTON: When the hon. Gentleman says "no departure has been made," are we to understand that no departure is going to be made? The question on the Paper is "if it is his intention." Can he give us an assurance in this matter, in which we on this side of the House feel very strongly, that there will be no departure from the existing policy?
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the hon. Gentleman include in his reply what the Government's policy is with regard to the unconscientious objectors who stayed at home to make money out of the War?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I suggest that both questions perhaps should be addressed to the Leader of the House, but the short position is that effect has been given to the Report of the Select Committee which
  40
  very carefully considered this matter, and I cannot see at the moment any likelihood of a departure from that practice. That, I am afraid, is the fullest reply I can give.

  PUBLIC BODIES (POOR LAW DISQUALIFICATION).
  Mr. PALMERasked the Prime Minister if he can give the House some assurance that steps will be taken to remove the disability precluding men and women in receipt of Poor Law relief from serving on public bodies?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): I have been asked to reply to this question, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on Monday last to similar questions.
  Mr. B. SMITH: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people who have in fact paid before entering these institutions are brought within the purview of this designation, and will he make every effort to eliminate them from that section?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: It my hon. Friend will look at the answer of last year, he will see the grounds that were given.

  EX-ARMY RANKER OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Prime Minister whether he has now reconsidered his attitude on the question of the grievance of ex-Army ranker officers in respect of their assessment for pension on the basis of non-commissioned rank?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have sent for the papers and shall satisfy myself on how far the questions submitted correspond to the facts before taking any action.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to be able to give a definite answer on this subject?

  NEW CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.
  Captain BERKELEYasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the doubt existing on the matter, the cruisers

  41
  proposed to be replaced by the accelerated programme have, or have not, been scrapped; and, if so, on what date they were scrapped?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As this House has already been informed, the Government have appointed a Cabinet Committee to consider the requirements of the Navy as regards the replacement of units of the Fleet, and normally the question of the building of the new cruisers would have awaited the consideration of the Committee's recommendations, but in view of the serious unemployment and of the urgency of cruiser replacement, the Government decided that the laying down of the five cruisers should be submitted to the House for approval with the Navy Estimates to be presented next month.
  Captain BERKELEY: Will the right Gentleman answer the question whether the cruisers proposed to be replaced have or have not been scrapped? If he will refer to the Debate he will see that there is doubt on the subject.
  The PRIME MINISTER: So far as my speech is concerned, there is no doubt. I said that the cruisers of the County class had been scrapped, but there was no system in the scrapping. As soon as a Government came in in a position to systematise both scrapping and replacement, they would have to begin their policy at the point of the scrapping of the County class.
  Captain BERKELEY: At what date were they scrapped?
  Captain Viscount CURZON: The right hon. Gentleman said a Committee is being set up. Is it a Cabinet Committee or a sub-Committee or the Committee of imperial Defence?
  The PRIME MINISTER: A Cabinet Committee.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Has anything been settled with regard to the remainder of the naval programme—the submarines, etc.

  DOCK STRIKE.

    TERMS OF SETTLEMENT ACCEPTED.
    Mr. BALDWIN: Has the Prime Minister any information to give to the
    42
    House about the position of the Dock Dispute?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am very happy to say that the delegates of the conference to-day have agreed to accept the terms of settlement and work will be resumed to-morrow morning. Proprietary men will, where possible, resume work to-day.

    BOMBAY MAILS.
    Major COLFOX(by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a picket of strikers at Tilbury Docks on Friday morning prevented the embarkation of mails for Bombay, whether these mails have since been sent off, and, if not, what he proposes to do in the matter?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): Yes, Sir; I am aware that the embarkation of these mails, which consisted of parcels, not letters, at Tilbury was prevented. I am making arrangements for their conveyance by the overland route to Marseilles, and, if there are no unforeseen delays in their transit across France, they should reach Marseilles in time to be embarked on the same ship.
    Major COLFOX: Do we understand that these mails have not yet been sent from this country?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also say whether or not it is a fact, as stated in the Press, that police protection was offered and refused, after communication with headquarters?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: It is as well to explain exactly what happened. There have been no attempts on the part of officials of the Dockers' Union to interfere with the handling of mails. We have had an assurance from them that they are prepared to co-operate, and they have been co-operating in this business. As a matter of fact, the inward and outward mails during the strike have exceeded 50,000 bags. We had some delay in connection with 5,000 bags at Plymouth and we have had some trouble with these thousand bags at Tilbury. Unfortunately, I was unable on Friday to get in contact with the officials of the union. [Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh at. The ship was leaving at one o'clock, and when I attempted to get into touch with

    43
    the officials to ask them to give the instructions which they had undertaken to give, unfortunately they were in conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fortunately!"] Fortunately in one sense. Unfortunately they were not getting quite the smooth sailing in conference that some of us would have liked. They were up against very serious difficulties and were unable to deal with this matter of mails, and the ship sailed before we could get them to give an order. I think, having regard to the magnitude of this business, it does appear that we have not had unreasonable interference, considering the abnormal conditions that have arisen.
    Major COLFOX: Are we to understand that the mails have not yet left this country?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the Supplementary Question which I addressed to him, whether it is the case that the police offered to give protection in order to put the mails on board, and that the postal authorities, after communicating with headquarters, refused to have that protection?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: If the hon. Member had put that Question down on the Paper I should have been prepared to reply.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I gave the Prime Minister and yourself, Mr. Speaker, private notice that I wished to put that Question to-day. I sent it specially by post to the Prime Minister and yourself.
    Major COLFOX: Are we to understand that these mails have not yet left this country?
    Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this simple question? Was police protection for postal officials offered in connection with the delivery of these mails on board, and did the postal authorities refuse that protection after they had communicated with headquarters?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I am afraid I cannot answer that question at the moment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister can only answer one question at a time. There is an answer to be given to the hon. Member's
    44
    below the Gangway as to whether the mails have already left or not.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not exactly know where the mails are at present. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. I only know that arrangements are being made to get them across to France, and arrangements are being made with the French postal authorities for facilities to get them to Marseilles.
    Major COLFAX: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to make effective arrangements for the regular carrying on of mail services.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will deal with that when I have disposed of the rest of the questions.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that considerable additional expense will be entailed in sending these mails overland to Marseilles?
    Mr. PENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the mail services are not interfered with in future?
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. SPEAKER: In view of what has been said to-day by the Postmaster-General, I cannot accept the Motion for the Adjournment as a matter of urgency. It is a subject of general criticism of the action of the Government during a dispute which we have just been told has been settled. Therefore, any criticism of the action of the Government must take place in the ordinary course, and not on a Motion of this kind.
    Sir K. WOOD: May I remind you, Sir, that the Postmaster-General said that he was unaware where the mails were, or whether they had reached their proper destination? Is it not, therefore, correct to say that it is a matter of urgent public importance to know exactly where these mails are, and whether they have reached their proper quarters?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think not.
    Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fact that many of these bags are official mails, as I understand, going out to India, and

    45
    that the Postmaster-General can give us no assurance that the mails will reach the steamer—he has said so in the course of his reply—is it not a matter of urgent public importance to discuss how the business of the King's Empire is going to be carried out if the Postmaster-General can give no guarantee of the mails reaching the steamer?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: On that same point of Order. The Postmaster-General has intimated to the House that the necessary steps are being taken to ensure that these mails will reach their destination. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Secondly, having regard to the fact that a recommendation has been made to settle the unfortunate dispute—which is much more important—is it not better to avoid a discussion that may cause more difficulty?
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I understood from the Postmaster-General that he has been endeavouring to make arrangements that these mails should reach Marseilles in time to catch the steamer, but he has, in fact, given no assurance that they will catch the steamer. I submit that it is a matter of urgency to secure from the Government an undertaking that they will ensure that the mails catch that steamer, if necessary, by giving instructions for the steamer to be detained until the mails reach Marseilles.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members seem to desire to take my duties away from me. Of course, all these considerations were present to my mind, and I have given my ruling.

  TREATY OF VERSAILLES (MR. A. HENDERSON'S SPEECH).
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the important speech delivered by the Home Secretary (Mr. Arthur Henderson) at Burnley on Saturday when he indicated that it was the intention of the Government to take steps to revise the Treaty of Versailles in several cardinal respects; whether that declaration represents the policy of the Government; if so, what steps the Government intend to take to carry out that policy and whether they have communicated their intention to the other signatories of the Treaty?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have only seen what has been reported in the Press. The attitude and intention of the Government have been expressed in the statements I have made to this House and no change has taken place.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: May we take it that the statement made by the Home Secretary is a decision of the Cabinet, or only the private opinion of the Home Secretary?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have only seen the Press reports, but there is no decision of the Government that has been taken except in accordance with the statements that I have made.
  Mr. McNEILL: As this is a very important matter, is the House to understand that a right hon. Gentleman in the position of the Home Secretary publicly makes the statement, a most important statement, as to the revision of the Treaty of Versailles without consultation with the Prime Minister?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know—I am not going to commit myself, whether the statement was made or not. I saw a statement in the Press. That statement, if made, was not a statement which has been passed by the Cabinet. The statements which I have made in the House and the action that I have taken are statements and action for which the Government are responsible.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: Arising out of the reply to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), is it not the case that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs expressed his intention several times in the country to revise the Treaty of Versailles and that he also expressed it in this House?

  GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.
  Mr. LINFIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the questions of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and myself, last week, he is now in a position to make a definite answer regarding the future of the German reparation 26 per cent. levy which is now paid by the British taxpayer?
  Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been in negotiation with representatives of the German Government regarding the cessation of payment of the reparations tax of 26 per cent. on German merchandise exported to this country; and, if so, whether he will state the result of such negotiations?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The negotiations which have taken place with representatives of the German Government on the subject of the Reparation Recovery Act have resulted in an agreement on the following lines:—
  The rate of the levy will be reduced from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent. in respect of goods imported on or after the 26th instant, i.e., after midnight to-night.
  In order to guarantee that no part of the levy shall be charged to British importers, the German Government has agreed to arrange for the compensation of the German exporters at a later date and to make it a punishable offence to charge any part of the levy to the British importer.
  Customs receipts in respect of all goods imported prior to the 26th instant (i.e., those at the rate of 26 per cent.) will be reimbursed by the German Government in Gold Bonds. Further details in regard to these Gold Bonds (which are different from and of a higher value than the Bonds previously issued in certain cases) will be published in the next issue of the "Board of Trade Journal." I understand that the Journal will be available, including this information, in about two days' time.
  Mr. LINFIELD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it will cost from five to ten per cent. to collect the five per cent. that now remains?
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the forwarding agents charge 5s. for arranging all the paper in those cases and 1s. 6d. for holding the parcels, and that, therefore, on every parcel under 6 lbs. there will be a loss of 6d. in that connection?
  Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to the second Supplementary Question, I may say that consideration will be given to the question of small parcels, which undoubtedly presents difficulties. I cannot go beyond
  48
  that at the moment. As regards the charge for collection, although the Government might have had to consider the complete repeal in certain circumstances, there are difficulties attached to a step of that kind at the present time. I am quite certain that from the point of view of the State, that is, the Government, the administration of this works out at a fraction of one per cent.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister in view of the announcement which has just been made. Will the Prime Minister give time for a discussion of a Motion for the suspension of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act in accordance with the terms of Section 6 of that Act?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for a private notice question.
  Mr. HOGGE: In view of the fact that the Order comes into operation to-night at midnight and that so many of the parcels are small, what good is the consideration which the hon. Gentleman has said will be given to the question of the small parcels going to be to the British importer of them, unless he knows where he is? Is it not a fact that since October this Government, and the last Government, have been discussing this matter, and have not been able to make up their combined minds?
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will not this decision involve legislation? What right has the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to reduce the duty from 26 to 5 per cent.?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot reply to the second supplementary, owing to the details of the matter, by question and answer, but there is power to do this by Treasury Minute, and that is the step which we propose to take.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will it be retrospective from October?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The principle of the agreement, of which there are six heads, recognises the difficulty which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has in mind, but, of course, the House will recognise that everything turns on the proportion of the levy which is borne by Germany and by traders in this country. I cannot give a precise answer this afternoon. Obviously, it is a matter

  49
  of adjustment, but the principle is, undoubtedly, embodied in the agreement.
  Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Financial Secretary give us an assurance that he will not assent to any arrangement which will relieve Germany of her obligation to this country, except as part of a general settlement applying to all the creditors of Germany?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot make any statement on the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, because it is a very much wider issue. We had to deal with the specific case of the 26 per cent. reparation levy which, as he knows, had broken down in operation due to the action of Germany. We had to come to a decision because of the position of traders in this country. Beyond that I cannot go.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he can make some temporary arrangement without giving away the principle to which I have alluded?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The principle which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind has been considered in connection with this decision.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will it be considered in future?

  DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move:
  "That Mr. C. F. Entwistle be the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means."
  When I proposed the appointment of the Chairman of Ways and Means the other day, I said that I would delay the Motion for a Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, because I hoped that I might be able to get a nomination from another party, so as to remove those offices a little bit further than they have been hitherto from the political appointments of the Government in power. I am happy to say that I have been able to succeed, and I therefore beg to move that Mr. C. F. Entwistle be the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Question put, and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he will be able to give a full day for the discussion to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: I really was hoping that it might be possible to dispose of the Poplar point by 8.15 to-morrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I understood that it had been filed down to a somewhat small issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is very necessary, if we are going to have a holiday at Easter at all, that we should get on with the essential Votes.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is a private Members' night to-morrow.
The PRIME MINISTER: That is so, but I think it is very undesirable to take away a private Members' evening unless there is general consent on all sides of the House. If, during the day, my hon. Friend discovers, through the usual channels, that there is consent to a Reso lution to-morrow to take away the private Members' right, then we shall have no objection, but, should it not be possible to come to that arrangement, I hope that we shall finish the Poplar point by 8.15.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this Resolution is in effect a vote of censure on one of His Majesty's Ministers, and that it is desirable to have sufficient debate to justify the application of the Closure.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite in the hands of the House. I am expressing my own views, and I put them forward in the form of an appeal. The appeal I make is that we try and get on with the business. I understood that the Poplar point had been filed down. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I understood that very little remained. If that be so, I think it would suit the convenience of all sides of the House to finish the debate by 8.15. I hope that during the day negotiations will be started through the usual channels, and we shall be very glad to implement any agreement or disagreement that is come to.
Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Have not the Liberals asked for this discussion, and do not they want to go on longer than 8.15?
Mr. PRINGLE: Was not Tuesday selected in consultation between the Government and the Opposition Whips, and without any consultation with the Liberal Whips at all?
Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I never heard anything about Tuesday?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am not informed about the gossip that goes on in the House, but, so far as I am concerned, there was no arrangement one way or the other. It was put to me as the business for Tuesday, and I accepted it, assuming that it had been agreed to.
Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that members of his own party have put down Amendments to the Resolution, and is he not prepared to give them facilities?

ILLEGITIMACY BILL,
"to consolidate, extend, and amend enactments relating to Bastardy and to Affiliation and certain other Orders, and to provide for the legitimation of illegitimate persons by the marriage of their parents, and to amend the Law relating to the rate of legacy duty and succession duty in the case of illegitimate persons, and otherwise to make further provision with respect to illegitimacy and illegitimate persons and their parents, and with respect to certain maternity cases; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. WIGNALL; supported by Mr. Cecil Wilson, Miss Lawrence, and Mr. Robert Richardson; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th March, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT.

    CLAUSE I.—(Provision of funds for purposes of the Diseases of Animals Acts, 57 & 58 Vict., c. 57.)
    The limitation of one hundred and forty thousand pounds imposed by Section eighteen of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, on the moneys which may be provided by Parliament towards defraying the costs in such Section mentioned and be paid to the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account for Great Britain shall not apply to moneys so provided in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-four.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. MOLES: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is intended to take the Amendment which stands in the name of some of my hon. Friends as a New Clause, or as an addition to Clause I?
    The CHAIRMAN: After we take Clause I and II, the hon. Member can raise that question.
    Captain FITZROY: In view of the importance of the situation as it now is with regard to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, I think that we are justified in seeking to obtain all the information that we can from the Government on this Bill as to what is the exact position of affairs at the present moment. In the course of the discussion which took place on the Money Resolution last week, we were told by the Government that there had been a very rapid improvement, that the disease was now well under control, and that it was felt that the restrictions still in force in a wide area may soon be removed. When these words were used by the Minister of Agriculture he did not know what was taking place in the country at that moment. Last week in the county, part of which I have the honour to represent, there has been a very serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I would like to take this opportunity of asking the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give us any account of the origin of this recent outbreak.
    104
    The outbreak occurred in Northampton market. That market had been closed for weeks as a store market. On Saturday week it was re-opened, and in consequence very large numbers of stores were submitted for sale in that market. Of course, the animals sent to the market had gone there without any permission or licence being given, and after sale they were distributed all over the county, and for all I know, to other parts of the country as well. Since that market took place in the county of Northampton alone there have been 17 outbreaks of this disease confirmed by the Ministry of Agriculture. The question arises, how did these animals get contaminated in Northampton market, or were they infected before they were sent there? I undertand that, at any rate, in the case of the first outbreak, the animals who were first infected, and consequently infected other animals in that market, were the property of two dealers, and had been part of a number of store cattle which had come direct from Ireland via Fishguard, and were sent forward to market immediately after arrival, and in the other case the animals were the property of another dealer, and they had come direct from Pembrokeshire, Wales, and they also after arrival were submitted for sale in this market.
    These animals, so far as I am informed, were found two or three days after the market to have contracted this disease. But while they were in the market they must have given it to a great number of other cattle who were distributed throughout the county, and possibly beyond the county boundary, and infected numerous herds, and there are now 17 cases registered in the county of Northampton. Either these animals contracted the disease in the market, or they must have had it before they got there, and I should be very much obliged if the Minister of Agriculture would inform the House whether in the course of the investigation, which no doubt he has set in motion since the outbreak occurred, he has ascertained where these animals contracted the disease?
    I should be sorry to suggest that the Ministry were not carrying out the regulations in the best manner to stamp out this disease. On the other hand, I should be sorry to suggest that the dealers and farmers and others are not doing their part in obeying the regulations which are made from time to time by the Ministry.

    105
    But it would appear that these animals, which could not have been sent unless they came from what was supposed to be an uninfected area, must have contracted it before they came in what was supposed to be a non-infected area, but must really have been an infected area, or they must have contracted it in the market when they got there. So far as these cattle are concerned, the market has been closed for a great many weeks, so that it is very difficult to understand how the animals could have contracted the disease in the market itself. The disease is practically paralysing the whole agricultural industry in all the infected areas at present in England. It has already cost this country upwards of £3,000,000 this year, and those are quite sufficient reasons why we should take every opportunity that presents itself to us in this House of inquiring how the Ministry thinks that its methods of stamping out this disease are progressing and whether it is taking the best possible precautions to prevent the disease from spreading any further?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease took place in Jamaica in 1922, and that Jamaica hides are coming into this country? These hides, I understand, have been refused admission into the United States, but they are still coming here. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that his Department has taken any steps to ascertain whether the outbreak of this disease is attributable to these hides? I asked the other day that the one question should be where this disease came from. We have been free from it for years, and now it has come from overseas. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the allegations made this morning in "The Times" is accurate or not, and whether any steps have been taken by his Department to ascertain whether Jamaica hides are infected with foot-and-mouth disease and whether they are still coming into this country?
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: On the last day on which we discussed this matter, I expressed doubt as to the efficiency of the Ministry of Agriculture in dealing with this question. Since then our anxiety has increased rather than diminished. I happened to see in "The Times" a few
    106
    days ago—I cannot remember the exact date—the statement that at Bristol cattle coming from Ireland had been found in lairages infected with this disease, and that the ports had been closed against foreign cattle and Irish cattle coming into this country. A few days afterwards I saw it stated that the ports had been reopened. I would like to have from the Minister some explanation as to the reasons for this conduct. I myself have always taken the view that the cattle with which this disease came over were probably Irish cattle. Whenever suggestions were made to this effect, we have always been told by the Minister of Agriculture that there is no trace of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. I would like to know on what information that statement is based. I can understand that no Irishman would ever admit that there was such a disease in Ireland. That would be fatal to a very valuable trade of the Irish farmers who send over large numbers of cattle here.
    That Irish cattle have been infected, and are infected, appears from the statement made to-day by the hon. Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy), who stated that in Northamptonshire there has been an outbreak of seventeen cases which apparently have originated from Irish cattle travelling about the country. So far as I can gather from what he said, they have come direct from the port of landing to the market in Northampton, and they spread the disease which has resulted in these seventeen outbreaks. In the cases which I mention, the cattle were infected in Bristol before they had started their travels through the country. Is there any arrangement between the Ministry and the Department of Agriculture in the Free State or in Northern Ireland to have a joint inspection or is it possible that an arrangement might be made? What is the evidence that there is no foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland? If there is no such arrangement as I suggest, do the British Department simply take the statement of the Irish officials that the disease does not exist in Ireland, and will the Minister tell us whether he himself is satisfied that in the case of these animals at Bristol the disease did not come from abroad and is not coming from Ireland?
    There is one other matter to which I would like to draw attention. On the

    107
    occasion of the last discussion I stated that I was not at all satisfied that the membership of the Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman was appointing to investigate the further outbreak of disease in this country, should be confined solely to members of the old Committee. It is extremely desirable that the spread of this disease should be investigated by new men who look at it from a new angle. I would like to know whether anything has been done in that direction. It is fairly plain that the disease may be air-borne. I wish to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the method that has been adopted by the persons employed by him in carrying out his slaughter policy. I have no doubt that the slaughter policy is the right one, but if it is to be effective it must be put into operation at the earliest opportunity, and be carried out with the greatest celerity. Since I made a few observations on this matter last week, I have had a number of letters from farmers in various parts of the country, and from others living in the rural districts, pointing out that it was quite a common thing, where herds have been slaughtered, from them not to be slaughtered for some days, that after they were slaughtered the carcasses were left exposed in the fields for days before they were disposed of, and that there were cases where the carcasses had been left lying in this way, with a strong wind blowing, and neighbouring farmers complained of their cattle being infected. If that be so, it is gross carelessness. If the work of investigation is left to the four gentlemen suggested for the Committee, is it not possible that it will be regarded as an attempt to whitewash the Ministry of Agriculture? Is the Minister quite satisfied that burning is the proper way to dispose of these carcasses? To my mind it is not, because the burning is not complete. The particles of burning matter are spread by the wind and otherwise. Though I do not claim to be an expert, I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that burial and destruction in quicklime is not a much quicker and more certain method? In these matters I should be very glad to have his considered opinion before we part with the subject.
    Mr. MOLES: At this stage, in view of the fact that we have an Amendment on the Paper to be moved later, I should not take part in the discussion but for some observations that fell from the right hon. Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy) and the last speaker. There would appear to be some misconception as to who is responsible for the administration of this Act in Northern Ireland. A question was put to the Minister as to whether he was coming to an arrangement between the two Governments in Ireland with respect to the supervision of animals on export. I wish to point out that it is the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible for all the Regulations and for the whole administration, at any rate, in Northern Ireland. His officers inspect these cattle at the port of embarkation, just as his officers inspect them upon arrival. He is directly responsible to this House for the whole of the administration in so far as Northern Ireland is concerned.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: Does that mean inspection on the farm in Northern Ireland, or only at the ports?
    Mr. MOLES: The whole business of the inspection of animals in respect of disease. If they are to be inspected upon the farms, the inspection is carried out by the officers of the right hon. Gentleman, who go to the farm to make the inspection. If the animals are to be inspected at the port the same officers carry out the whole business. Therefore, in so far as the criticism we have heard is supposed to imply any neglect of duty in Northern Ireland, it loses its point at once. But there is another aspect of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman can scarcely quarrel if we press the point that we are subject to a great deal of harassing and vexatious restrictions. Let me give one case as an illustration. A consignment of animals was exported from Belfast to the Port of Fleetwood. Amongst them were some milch cattle. One of them was a cow which had just calved. This cow was seized with milk fever after a stormy voyage and lack of attention. They sent for the veterinary surgeon to the hydro at Norbreck, near Blackpool, where in fact at the moment a very serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was raging. A question put in this House elicited from the Minister's

    109
    predecessor that this gentleman went down to inspect this particular animal without having been subject to disinfection. He not only communicated the disease to that particular cow, but to the whole of the animals there. They were slaughtered.
    What we complain of bitterly is this: These animals were infected as the result of the action of the Ministry's servant. They were infected in this country and not in Ireland, but the wretched owner was denied any compensation. Two or three cases of that kind occurred in quick succession, and three men, largely engaged in this trade, were broken and had to go out. It is not too strong a complaint to make, and I put it very pointedly now that the time has come to consider one fact seriously, not so much in the interests of the cattle trade in Ireland as out of regard for the interest of the cattle trade in this country. You have had denudation of nearly three counties of all your store cattle. You must look to Ireland as your nearest and only market for replacing these. Unless you give to the people to whom you look for replacement an assurance that the kind of thing I have described is not to go on for ever, I fear that you will look in vain. The injustice of it is so palpable that it needs no argument. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter sympathetic consideration.
    Major CHURCH: The fact that the country is suffering from foot-and-mouth disease is not due to any positive or negative action on the part of the present Government, but is due to the past Government's neglect of the obvious course to be taken, namely, the earnest prosecution of scientific research. That is what successive Governments have failed to do. The amount of money that has recently been devoted to the endowment of a school of animal pathology at Cambridge was a step in the right direction, for from it the greatest hopes of success are promised. It is all very well for the last speaker to say that a veterinary surgeon communicates the disease because he does not take the necessary precautions.
    Mr. MOLES: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not misunderstand me. I made a specific charge in respect of a specific case. The facts were
    110
    admitted, and are upon the official records of the Ministry.
    Major CHURCH: Even if the facts were admitted by the Ministry, I doubt very much whether the present state of knowledge with regard to the communication of the disease, the incidence of the disease, and the incubation period is sufficient to prove the point of the right hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Moles).
    Mr. MOLES: The point that I wished to make was clear. It was found impossible, in the subsequent tracing of the movements of animals, to discover any disease whatever in any part of Ireland. The disease was proved to exist on the farm from which this veterinary surgeon came, and it was found at the expiration of the incubation period at the place where he treated the animal. The rest is matter of obvious inference.
    Major CHURCH: The most obvious things in science are sometimes impossible, once they are thoroughly investigated from their source. It is not always the obvious which proves to be the cause. So far, we know precisely nothing about foot-and-mouth disease, except that it has a certain effect. We know nothing about the period of incubation or about the particular virus that communicates the disease. That is what we want to know. We are endeavouring to ascertain this information, and a group of investigators is trying to produce a culture of the particular virus. That is a matter which should engage the very earnest attention of the Government. During the past 12 months alone the outbreak has cost £3,500,000, but we can assert with some confidence that if £100,000 a year, which is about half the interest on the capital charge, had been devoted for the past ten years to the investigation of culturable viruses, that is, since the time when Dr. Twort asked for a little assistance from the Treasury for the prosecution of his researches—there are many others who have asked the Ministry of Agriculture and the Development Commission in vain for money to prosecute their researches—we should be in a very different position to-day.
    An absurd sum, which many of us believe could have been saved, has been spent in this country in the last few years

    111
    because of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. Before that time, much of the loss was borne by the farmer, because he had no Ministry to look after him and to compensate him for the slaughter of his cattle. I suggest that we should get some new blood on the Committee which is set up by the Ministry, and on that point I am in entire agreement with the hon. Gentleman opposite. We want not only investigators or an investigator on the animals pathology side, but a thoroughly competent investigator on the human pathology side. Many of these diseases are common to both human beings and animals, and human pathology does not differ necessarily from animal pathology. We ought to call in the best human pathologists or ask the Medical Research Council to assist to the best of their endeavours in trying to eliminate this disease, in very much the same way as other diseases, which are equally dreadful in their effects, such as rinderpest and swine fever, have been stamped out. We want more co-operation between scientific departments and we want more money. These investigations should be endowed by the State. We also want to have on that Committee new blood—members who will determine that the whole matter should be referred to a competent group of investigators, charged with the fullest responsibility and given the fullest facilities. Such a course, obviously, entails research in foreign countries. There is the field of research. The only wonder is that, after the last serious outbreak, this course was not taken, and investigators were not sent abroad where there would have been no danger of communicating the virus to cattle in this country. I feel sure every facility would be granted to such investigators by foreign Governments, who are as keen as we are on eradicating the disease. It is in that direction I am convinced that success is most likely to be achieved, and it is in that direction I hope the Ministry intend to act.
    Viscount WOLMER: I agree that nothing like as much research has been done by the Ministry of Agriculture and the British Government in the past as might have been done. But I would remind the hon. Member who has just sat down that you cannot, by the mere spending
    112
    of money or even by administrative ability, make a discovery to order. For several years past enormous sums of money have been spent and some of the greatest medical intellects of our time have been concentrated on the problem of the cure of cancer. Nobody knows when the necessary discovery may be made. It may come to-morrow, or it may not come for 10 or 20 years or even longer. While I do not suppose anybody would dispute the necessity for research, that cannot be looked to as a solution of the problem which faces the country and the Ministry at the present moment. I associate myself entirely with what the hon. Member said about the intimate connection between human and animal pathology, and I should like to add that the task of the investigators has not been made easy by the frequent attacks on vivisection made in this House and elsewhere. These have, in some cases, greatly hindered the work of research and in others has interfered with it almost to an even more serious extent. While agreeing with the hon. Member on that point, that is not the problem which now faces us. We have to stamp out the disease by such methods as are at present known to us, and do what we can to remedy the damage which has been caused.
    This leads me to mention a point which I raised in my speech on the Money Resolution, and in a question to the Minister, namely, the basis of compensation. I do not think, with all respect, that the Minister quite adequately dealt with this matter. It is true the right hon. Gentleman is only following in the footsteps of his predecessor, but that is not an adequate defence for everybody in these days of progress and enlightenment. I wish to point out again, that the case of the dairy farmer differs completely from the case of the farmer who owns a herd of bullocks and they are affected differently by the way in which compensation is at present administered. Both are paid for the value of their animals and thus the farmer who is merely fattening bullocks receives some measure of compensation for the loss he has suffered, but the man who is in the dairy business may have had his business ruined; his goodwill may be gone and his business connection ended, but in respect of that which is far and away the most important matter to him, representing

    113
    a very much greater figure than the value of the animals, he does not receive a single penny from the Ministry. I questioned the right hon. Gentleman on this matter before, or rather I attempted to put a question to him, but questions to the Ministry of Agriculture are now so arranged that verbal queries are utterly impossible. All we are favoured with are little written replies which we receive about two hours after Question Time—replies which are sometimes very tantalising in the number of potential supplementary questions which they invite.
    In reply to a question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman, he stated that he is merely carrying out the law as it stands. Do I understand that the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, prevents the Government from paying compensation to dairy farmers in respect of the goodwill which they have lost through the slaughter of their herds? Can the Minister tell me what particular Section of what particular Act, prevents the Ministry from paying fair compensation to dairy farmers? When he has told me that however, he has not satisfied me because he is coming to the House for another Bill, and why can he not insert in it a Clause enabling him to compensate dairy farmers in the same proportion as the owners of fattening stock are compensated? The basis is technically the same, but in effect totally different, and the Minister, when seeking financial powers to compensate, should ask for powers to compensate in a fair and equitable manner. I also raised the question of compensation for the farm labourers who were turned out of work as a result of the outbreak. The right hon. Gentleman has been able to give me an assurance that practically all the farm labourers turned out of work through the slaughter of herds during the epidemic, have been provided with other work at approximately the same remuneration. If that be the case, I agree that the need has been met, and I am very glad to receive that assurance. On the other point, however, we should have an explanation as to why the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to meet the dairy farmers' case. It is no defence to say that this has not been done in the past. We have never had an outbreak in the past comparable to the present one, and just as we must review the whole of our position from a
    114
    medical point of view, so we must, when we are paying these vast sums in compensation, see to it that they are paid on a fair basis.
    Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: In their attempts to find the sources of infection and the methods of transmission of infection, the officials of the Ministry seem to have overlooked one very important possible source of infection—namely, hired sacks. These hired sacks go all over the country. They are carried about in farm carts, they are liable to infection, and when their use on a particular farm is finished they go back to the hirers and then to another farm. If they are capable of carrying infection—as to which I offer no opinion, and as to which I do not think anyone is prepared to offer an opinion—there is an obvious source of danger. The cost of these sacks is comparatively small, and where hired sacks are in use on an infected farm, it would cost very little to destroy them and pay compensation for them. In view of all the possibilities, I think that principle might be adopted by the Ministry. The question of compensating dairy farmers is one of extraordinary difficulty, because it is almost impossible to determine the value of the goodwill of a dairy business. It is impossible to forecast the future of such a business, and it is impossible to judge by the past what its value is. There are other matters which complicate the question, and even if the principle suggested by the Noble Lord who spoke last were adopted, it would be very difficult indeed to work it in practice.
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: There are two questions which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me as though Northamptonshire might follow in the painful experience which we had in Cheshire, and I ask, first: Is the Minister absolutely certain that he has adequate staff to deal with what may take place in Northamptonshire in some days' time? My experience in Cheshire was that when a man notified the existence of foot-and-mouth disease on his farm, there was not adequate staff to deal with the case for days. The cattle were not slaughtered; they began to get better, and then the Ministry's officers came and slaughtered them. Nothing could be more maddening to farmers than to see cattle treated in that way. I am not blaming

    115
    anybody, because I know the outbreaks were so numerous and so sudden it was impossible to deal with them, but I think on a second occasion the Ministry should be prepared. If slaughter is to be satisfactory, it must be immediate in cases of this kind. The second question is: Will the Minister keep an open mind as regards the Committee which he is going to set up? I fear if the Committee is what the right hon. Gentleman has called the Pretyman Committee, farmers in the country will regard it as a sort of whitewashing Committee, and that is not what is wanted. I think it would be much better that a county like Cheshire, which has suffered so frightfully, should have a Member on that Committee, someone who has not expressed an extreme view one way or the other. It would be a thousand pities if the people were to take the view I have just indicated, namely, that the Committee is merely intended to provide a coat of whitewash for the Ministry.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On the question of the publication by the Ministry of the results of their investigations into the origin of particular outbreaks, I wish to raise one point. There have been a great many outbreaks in my part of the country and, directly outbreaks take place, there are the wildest and most contradictory rumours among farmers of different schools of thought and different opinions. Then usually the Ministry of Agriculture endeavours to collect some chain of evidence and sift what is accurate from what is inaccurate. The great difficulty is that that takes a long time, and real publicity regarding the actual evidence as to what has proved of value seldom is brought out in time, if at all. One of the first things to be done after this great outbreak is to publish in Blue Book form both the positive and negative results of their investigation as to the cause of particular outbreaks and the spread of the disease to particular districts. In one case of which I know, I asked one farmer about it and he said: "I have got definite evidence that this came from Ireland." I said, "Have you sent it to the Board of Agriculture?" and he replied "Oh, no; they say Ireland is free and it is not worth sending it." Another farmer said in another case that the disease came in fodder from France, because a particular ship had brought goods packed with hay
    116
    and straw from a port on the West Coast of France where there is a great amount of foot-and-mouth disease.
    It is of the utmost importance to the agricultural community that all investigations by the Ministry of Agriculture into the conflicting evidence about things of that kind should be adequately published. It is quite as important in a scientific matter of this kind to publish the negative results as to publish the positive results. The next point I wish to speak about is in regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for East Leyton (Major Church) said as to the necessity for research. There, again, it is most important that all who are carrying out research into this matter should encourage farmers, even quite humble farmers, to send in their suggestions and their knowledge and anything that may usefully contribute to the research. That is the difficulty one is up against in the rural community of this country. They are apt to regard the research people as highbrows living in laboratories at university centres, and there has not been sufficient liaison between the practical farmers and farmers' organisations and the research centres in this country. I do hope that in the future that will be improved, because it will be mutually beneficial to scientific men and to practical farmers.
    In connection with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for East Leyton, as to the necessity for publishing in this country more fully the results, again even the negative as well as the positive results, of all foreign research into this matter, I would say that, after all, we have not spent a great deal of money. The Argentine have spent enormous sums on this particular investigation, and other countries where the disease has been prevalent have spent largely on the work. We should arrange for more systematic investigation of the whole question of the communicability of this disease. Different aspects of this research should be referred to different countries for evidence as to facts. Then I want to know what is this story about Canada offering to provide dairy cattle for Cheshire and those cattle having been refused? Is it a fact that under the present law it was impossible for us to accept the offer by the Canadian Government of dairy cattle to replace the herds that had been destroyed? Is it true such

    117
    an offer has been made and has been turned down, and, if so, why? It would be a great thing for the Empire generally if, such an offer having been made, it could be accepted, if only to show the good will that Canada is showing the farmers of this country, owing to the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle.
    Mr. F. MARTIN: I would feel obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he would make a statement as to the case of the Aberdeenshire herds which were slaughtered. I do so principally for this reason, that I observe that a pedigree herd in Ayrshire has been slaughtered with the authority and presumably at the expense of the Ministry of Agriculture. That makes the case of Aberdeenshire even more unique than it was last week. It is the only county where slaughter has taken place without compensation being paid. I would ask if it is impossible to indemnify the county council under this Bill. The matter will not be pressed on these benches, but we do hope the Minister will take it into serious consideration and find out if it is possible to compensate Aberdeenshire with a grant or in some other way. One point was not made clear in the recent Debate. It is that the Ministry, in deciding to isolate and not to slaughter the Aberdeen pedigree herds, were under the impression that the farm where the outbreak occurred was easily isolated. It appears that the farm was not capable of being isolated, for the reason that through the farm there run two public roads and a stream, and it is obviously difficult to isolate a farm situated as that farm is. It was possible to secure partial isolation so long as the stock was under cover, but it would have been entirely impossible to maintain isolation after the cattle were out in the fields. I hope the Minister will give us some reason to hope that he will consider this matter favourably if he secures his Bill.
    With regard to the spreading of infection, may I say that it has just been brought to my notice that there is some danger arising from the hides of animals slaughtered in the infected areas? In the case about which I have been speaking, there are no adequate slaughtering facilities in the controlled area. The Ministry would not allow the animals to be removed from that area to a clean area where there are slaughtering facilities,
    118
    and a large number of cattle were slaughtered in improvised places. Farmers were puzzled to know why they could not remove live cattle for slaughter, while hides and hoofs from the infected herds were removed from the infected area to a clean area. In a county so far north as Aberdeenshire, I recognise it was impossible for the Ministry to exercise very strict supervision of what was going on, and, perhaps, they were not aware that that impact was taking place, but it has caused a certain amount of uneasiness among farmers.
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I may be allowed to deal, first, with two or three suggestions which were rather apart, in their general bearing, from this Debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) raised the question of a possible source of infection in hides. We are always looking out for possible sources of infection, but I am sure there is no more danger in these hides, which are absolutely dry, than in frozen meat from the Argentine or anywhere else. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) raised the question of publicity. The Ministry is always endeavouring to keep the public fully informed of the situation, and a report of the latest facts is actually sent to the Press each day. I wish it was more carefully studied by a larger public. Then the interesting suggestion was made that farmers and others with ideas should be encouraged to lay them before the Ministry. I can assure the hon. Member that suggestions pour into the Ministry and that they are carefully considered. Some are very interesting indeed. There is certainly no lack of readiness to impart ideas or any sense that they will not be welcomed by the officials of the Ministry.
    In regard to the question of cattle from Canada, it is the fact that the Canadian Government expressed its readiness to supply the cattle which a section of the farmers, in Cheshire particularly, were anxious to have. The Canadian Government indicated that the cattle were there and that they would encourage the sale of them to British buyers. This subject came up at the Imperial Conference. To have allowed these cattle in would have gone rather beyond the decisions of the Conference. I had to consider the question

    119
    in the interests of the largest number. There was a large proportion of the farming community who were very strongly opposed to the entrance of these cattle. I am a good Free Trader, and I satisfied myself that the real reason for excluding these particular cattle, which is not the ordinary importation of Canadian stores, is in the interests of maintaining the standard of British cattle. We have arrived at a very much higher standard, and there is a certain danger if we allowed this importation that our standard might be lowered. I am clear that, on the whole, it would not have been a sound thing to do.
    As to the Aberdeenshire case, I have no power to pay compensation. The local authority exercises power to slaughter animals in certain cases. I could, if the hon. Member wished, give the whole history of this particular case, but the fact was that the local authority decided to slaughter. The Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order, following the terms of the Diseases of Animals Act, as my hon. Friend knows, directs the local authority to pay compensation out of the local rates, and there is no authority given by the Act to the Ministry to refund any such expenditure. It might very well be supposed that the Act should do so, but at present I, like my predecessors, am only administering the Act as it is. So much for the Aberdeenshire case.
    Now I come to the very serious matter raised at the opening of the Debate by my right hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Daventry, namely, the Northamptonshire outbreak. That is another illustration in this outbreak of the extraordinary obscurity which attaches to foot-and-mouth disease. It is certainly a great disappointment that when the disease appears to have been got under foot, there has been, not exactly a recrudescence, but certainly the temporary disappearance of the hope that a clean bill of health would arise in the very near future. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he fully recognised the efficiency and hard work of all those concerned in dealing with the outbreak generally, as well as his recognition of the farmers and the loyalty they had displayed. It is a very obscure thing that somebody, one or more persons, put one or more infected animals into the market,
    120
    and infected many other animals there, unknown to anyone. The market was, of course, distributive, and many animals which had contracted the infection were so distributed. The Ministry has not yet any definite knowledge regarding who was the delinquent. Inquiries are proceeding, and I hope that the truth will be found out. The market was held on the 16th, and it was in an area recently freed from restriction. The disease was found among animals which had only just come from the market. I hope the person will be traced, if only because enormous damage has resulted. It was said that 17 outbreaks had followed in Northamptonshire, but that is not all. I believe the total resulting is 20 outbreaks in all.
    Sip H. CAUTLEY: Is it true they were Irish cattle?
    Mr. BUXTON: That is not known.
    Captain FITZROY: Has the right hon. Gentleman assured himself that the cattle that were responsible for this outbreak were infected before they went to the market, and were not infected in the market?
    Mr. BUXTON: I take it that even that cannot be ascertained with absolute certainty, but it is almost certain that they were infected before they were placed in the market. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) raised the question of compensation for certain other claims, which I have often felt are very cogent indeed. Extreme hardships arise in all these matters, and not only in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. I remember very well the hardships which arose in connection with swine fever long ago. The Act lays down very explicitly that you may compensate for slaughtering. I have read the Section, the number of which I do not, at the moment, remember, but we are certainly not able, as the Act stands, to depart from the present limit of compensation for slaughtered animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Simpson) asked whether it would not be profitable and efficient to destroy other things on the farm, and so make sure that infection was not spread. I understand that that is done in many cases. You can, of course, purchase any article, and compensation is afforded in that way, and wherever it is thought necessary, articles or equipment on the farm, which might carry infection, are destroyed.
    Mr. SIMPSON: My point was that hired sacks are a special case, as they differ from other articles in that respect.
    Mr. BUXTON: I can assure my hon. Friend that that will be very carefully gone into, and he may take it that no risks are run which can possibly be avoided, and the Act does allow us, in effect, to compensate for those losses. You have every ground in reason and humanity for holding that certain cases ought to receive compensation which do not now receive it, but then, to what are you led? I noticed in several quarters of the House last week a very strong desire that we should not be led into larger expense, and if you are to accept every claim which may be based upon justice, you are very likely to get into a bill which the country would not stand. I think, really, there is more hope in the inquiries we are setting on foot into the possibility of a general scheme of insurance. I know people, relations of my own, who have insured against consequential losses, and not on bad terms at all, even in these bad times, and I hope we shall get to a feasible proposal for removing the enormous risk which attaches to people who are not insured now, in spite of the very generous and enormously costly compensation which the Act does provide. We had an Amendment moved last week, which, I suppose, was inspired by a fear that too much might be spent, and we must not forget that there is that objection. It was asked whether, in the event of this outbreak assuming any proportions comparable to those of the outbreaks in Cheshire, the staff was ready to deal with it. We are not taken by surprise as the country was in the case of Cheshire, and I think I can certainly give the assurance that there will not be any breakdown, unless something quite unforeseen and critical occurs, of the machinery for carrying out the policy laid down by my predecessors and followed by myself.
    I may be allowed a word on the question of Ireland. Some Irish cattle, which came from Bristol, after arrival in Nottinghamshire seven days after leaving Ireland, developed foot-and-mouth disease. This left a suspicion that they might have contracted the disease in Ireland, and therefore the Irish trade was stopped while inquiries were made, but the inquiries showed that they were not
    122
    infected in Ireland. There was no disease at Bristol, and there would, undoubtedly, have been disease among the rest of the animals remaining at Bristol had the disease come from Ireland. I think that that piece of possible evidence against Ireland was entirely disposed of, and my information is that we cannot attach suspicion any longer. In regard to the question of inspection raised by an hon. Member below the Gangway opposite, the body which is responsible for the inspection in Ireland is the Home Office.
    Mr. F. MARTIN: The Irish Home Office, or the English Home Office?
    Mr. BUXTON: The English Home Office.
    Mr. MOLES: So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, it is my right hon. Friend's Department that deals entirely with the Diseases of Animals Act in Northern Ireland. It is the Home Office which deals with it in Southern Ireland—that is, the Home Office for the Free State.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: My question related to Southern Ireland, as to whether we had any inspection there.
    Mr. BUXTON: I was asked whether I was satisfied with the administration as it has been carried out. I am comparatively new to this business. A month ago the outbreak had already subsided in the main, and the real crisis occurred about six weeks before. There was, I am told, a distinct breakdown. Animals were left unslaughtered, and carcasses were left undestroyed, and I do not know that it was humanly possible, though I, of course, had no knowledge or responsibility at the time, that that breakdown could have been avoided. Certainly, I know that the chief veterinary officer and his staff worked day and night, and nearly killed themselves, with the extraordinary labour that was suddenly thrown upon their Department. I am sure that the Department is in the highest state of efficiency. In regard to the problem of burning, or not burning, that seems to be a matter for technical opinion, but I have seen the burning on one farm at least, and I should say that the safest thing was to burn. At all events, I am not prepared to undertake the responsibility of altering a policy and a method of administration which have been in force for a long

    123
    time, and which were pursued by my predecessor through the outbreak when it was at its height. The responsibility would be too great for me to take to change it, especially when the outbreak has subsided now to an infinitesimal extent compared with what it was.
    I have left to the last a point which was raised by several hon. Members—namely, the subject of research, because that seems to me to be the direction in which we must turn after consideration of all these things, and it is only in research that any great hope can be placed. I was asked whether a Committee consisting of new men might not be advisable in the circumstances. I still think I was right, and that when you had some very competent men, who reviewed certain circumstances two years ago and knew all the technicalities, all the ropes, of this question, and now you have a similar thing, but on a larger scale, with new features, and you have these men with the knowledge and ability to review these new features, I do not think you could do better than appoint these men. If I could hear of any very highly qualified man—if he was an antislaugher man, well, all the better, I might add him to the Committee. Let every opinion be represented on the Committee. I have endeavoured to hear who were the best men, and for the particular purpose of examining the administration and the working out, for instance, among other things, of a plan of insurance, I doubt very much if you could do better than appoint these men. I am sure that their names are a sufficient guarantee that the public will not associate with them any suspicion of whitewashing or hushing-up, or a mind not open to new ideas in view of the circumstances with which we are met.
    I think that great hope for any reform and great progress attaches to the other committee which I am appointing, and of which I hope very soon to be able to give the names. Last week I mentioned the name of a distinguished man who was willing to be chairman. It is on the scientific side, I think, that there is most hope of getting abreast of this disease. The question has been asked why more was not done during the last two years. I think all of us have asked that question, and I do not think it is for me to wonder or suggest that anyone was not active in
    124
    seeking any opportunity there was of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. Certainly two years ago there was a tremendous stimulus to public interest in the whole matter, and whether then more could have been done or not, it is perfectly clear more ought to be done now, and I think my predecessor did the right thing two months ago in inviting Sir William Leishman to sketch out a plan of inquiry, and it has fallen to me to receive his report. I am very hopeful that we shall secure for that inquiry the very best men that are to be had anywhere, I fully agree with my hon. Friend behind me that both branches of scientific research should be represented. There will be, I hope, an equal number of human pathologists and veterinary experts, and I hope the interest indicated in the Committee to-day will be maintained to the full, that money will not be grudged to the Committee, that it will be given every support—it may have to be maintained, perhaps, for several years—and that we shall arrive at a satisfactory result.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I do not wish to prolong the Debate, but I have one or two things to say. I think slaughter is the most brutal and most unscientific method ever adopted to combat an infectious disease. I do not feel myself competent to say it is not the only method available, but I would urge on the Government the prosecution of research. It is really amazing that so little has been done in this direction. The cost in compensation and administration for the last six months was £2,800,000, and the amount spent on research during that time was £30,000, and the scientific men have been complaining bitterly during the last twelve months of the way they have been hampered in this research. Professor J. M. Beattie, who wrote to the "Times" on the 9th of last month, protested against the way in which the Committee had been hampered and restricted in prosecuting its research, and how money that was necessary for prosecuting that research in foot-and-mouth disease had been withdrawn and they had been compelled to cease their investigations. The suggestion has been made that some of the farms might be isolated and used for experimental purposes. I have not been able to discover whether or not one attack of this disease gives immunity against subsequent attacks.

    125
    It is one of the lines along which investigation could be made, whether, if an animal—a calf, for instance—contracts the disease, and then recovers, it is immune from subsequent attack? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has been advised by his scientific advisers on that particular point, because, if so, we might find some system of inoculation during the early period of growth. I think if money were lavished now upon research, it would be money well spent. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend has had the suggestion made to him that some prize or award should be offered for a discovery. Our scientific men are not sufficiently considered in this direction. Very often an investigator is produced by the offer of some award. If £50,000 were offered to any person in the world, whatever country it might be, for the discovery of a preventive or cure—more particularly a preventive—some reward might be offered. It is wonderful how the prospect of a reward of that kind stimulates research. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the effort he has made on the lines of research. I feel quite sure it is the only hope of remedying this disease, and the sooner we discover a remedy, the sooner we shall get rid of a brutal and an unscientific method of trying to combat this disease.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: There are only two points on which I should like briefly to touch. The first is, that when slaughter operations have taken place on one or two occasions that have been brought to my notice, the methods of the slaughterers has been singularly inadequate and ineffective. A case came to my direct notice in Kent, where an outbreak occurred, and certain cattle had to be slaughtered. One of the cattle due for slaughter escaped, and for 24 hours, more or less, was wandering about the country districts without any trace whatever being found of it. Eventually it was shot, but that, I submit, is an evidence of very indifferent arrangements. I believe representations were addressed to the Minister of Agriculture at the time of the occurrence. I understand a similar episode occurred at Cheshire. Precautions should be taken to prevent such episodes. If slaughter has been decided upon and strict isolation is necessary, for Heaven's sake let us see that cattle do not escape in this manner.
    126
    The other point upon which I should like to touch is the question of rats. There is a Rats Act in force, or, rather, on the Statute Book, and not in force. It is well known that rats and other rodents—mice and so on—disseminate a very large amount of disease, and one of the medical officers of health in Cheshire drew special attention to the circumstance that when an outbreak occurred on an isolated farm, all the cattle on that farm were killed, but in a few days the rats, which were very numerous on the farm, left, owing to this infection which had taken place, and invaded the neighbouring homesteads. In a very short time there was an epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease around that particular farm where this isolated outbreak had first occurred. I do not say there is conclusive proof that the rats conveyed the disease, but, as we know that rats convey immunerable other disease—typhoid, typhus, and so on—I do suggest it is time the Rats Act was made a live instrument rather than the purely inoperative Measure it now is, because there is no doubt that rats do an enormous amount of harm to agriculture generally, quite apart from the probable dissemination of foot-and-mouth disease. I thought it important that these two points should be raised.
    Mr. CLIMIE: Not only in this Debate, but in previous Debates, time and again, the question of compensation for the slaughter of animals in Aberdeen has been raised, and, as far as I can gather, considerable pressure has been brought to bear upon the Minister to grant compensation to the county council in Aberdeen. I hope the Minister will not grant compensation in that particular case. As I understand the position, this was a pedigree herd of cattle, and the policy of the Ministry has been that, while they favour slaughter, in the case of pedigree cattle they do not pay the pedigree price. The Aberdeen County Council ordered the slaughter of these animals, not while the disease was on the animals, but, as I am informed, two months after the animals were actually cured. The statement has also been made that a pedigree herd of cattle has been slaughtered in Ayrshire. That is not a correct statement. The cattle have not been slaughtered. The circumstances are that the owner of the herd refused to slaughter,

    127
    and the county council, like the county council in Aberdeen, are anxious that the cattle should be slaughtered. Unlike the Aberdeen County Council, they try to bring pressure to bear upon the Ministry to slaughter the cattle, but, up to now, the cattle have been isolated, and not slaughtered. I want to suggest to the Minister that if he gives way in recognising payments to the Aberdeen County Council, who, without receiving the liberty from the Ministry to slaughter the cattle, do slaughter them, and then try to recover the cost of the cattle from the Ministry, they will be up against every other county committee who may find themselves differing from the Ministry. I would suggest that if the Ayrshire Committee, who, presumably, are acting directly under the instructions of the Ministry, got to know there was any likelihood of the Ministry conceding the claim of the Aberdeen County Council, then the Ayrshire County Council would be justified in slaughtering the cattle under the authority they have under the Act and then coming to the Ministry for compensation. Under these circumstances I hope the Ministry will retain their own policy. While I quite agree that proper research should be made, still if the policy is that of slaughter and paying the ordinary market price for the cattle, and refusing to pay pedigree price, then until that policy is altered the Ministry should resist any action taken by any county council.
    Lieut.-Col. LAMBERT WARD: It certainly seems to me, if the statement just made by the hon. Gentleman opposite is correct, that cattle were slaughtered not after the disease was diagnosed, but two months afterwards, that it is a most extraordinary line to be taken; and I really should like the Minister of Agriculture to make some statement and let us know what are the actual facts. Especially so in regard to the alleged non-slaughtering of pedigree cattle. It seems to me—and a great many people share the view—that there has been a great deal too much slaughtering, especially as we do not seem to get this terrible disease stamped out by doing so. If we slaughter all the herds which take the disease, we get no opportunity of making veterinary and other research into the matter. We do not
    128
    know as to how these outbreaks of the disease are spread. One suggestion is that it is spread by the slaughterers themselves going from farm to farm, while another suggestion is that it is spread by the carrion crows, which, I am sorry to say, in certain cases have undoubtedly been allowed to feed on the diseased cattle after slaughter before the carcases have been destroyed. Other suggestions are that it is carried from farm to farm by rats, hares or rabbits. But whatever the source of infection may be, unless, however, we isolate some of the cattle and endeavour in that manner to find out what actually causes the disease, we shall not do much as to the possibility of cure. I believe I am right in saying that in one of the farms of Cheshire where the disease broke out among a large herd of pedigree cattle, only two were lost when the policy of isolation was adopted. These particular two animals were apparently not in the best state of health. A few words from the Minister of Agriculture on this policy of slaughter would be welcome. There may be an opportunity to try the isolation policy so that, it may be, wholesale slaughter may be avoided. It would appear that the disease is going to continue in the country for some months, and it is desirable that something should be done to save the actual and appalling loss and appalling expense which is incurred at the present time.
    Mr. McCONNELL: I am dissatisfied with the exposition of the Minister of Agriculture as to foot-and-mouth disease in England and Scotland. We have none in Ireland. However, my object in rising is for the purpose of drawing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman once more to the anomaly that Irish farmers are suffering from in the Act that was passed last autumn whereby they cannot receive, and do not receive, compensation for the loss of their cattle. I have in my hand at the moment an advertisement which has been issued by the East Anglian farmers. These farmers are anxious to get 1,000 Irish store cattle per week. How are these store cattle to be got here if the British Government does not help the Irish farmer to send them here? Cattle, which in an ordinary way leaves Ireland, are subjected to a very stern examination by the officers of the right hon. Gentleman—and here I should like to compliment the right hon. Gentleman

    129
    on the officers that he has, specially in Northern Ireland. These cattle that leave are examined by these officers before they are shipped. They are also examined on this side by the right hon. Gentleman's officers, and are detained during the normal period of detention. Surely, after these two examinations, and after they go through the period of detention, they should be dealt with as English cattle, not leaving the poor Irish farmer to suffer the loss incurred between battledore and shuttlecock, by his cattle, in that sense, not being Irish or English cattle?
    I should like once more to draw attention to this very important matter. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to try and help the situation, because you want our cattle, and we want to sell you our cattle. Therefore let him facilitate us in sending the cattle in a healthy state, as we have at all times tried to do. Here, in passing, let me say that we look carefully after our lairages, but I would respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there are some lairages on the west coast of Scotland and England that require attention.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I did not propose to intervene in this Debate, but I am forced to reply in a few words to the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Climie). I want to do so because my hon. Friend the Member for Eastern Aberdeenshire (Mr. F. Martin)—who is not in the House for the moment—raised this subject of compensation for Aberdeenshire in the early part of the evening. I am not as cognisant of the facts as the hon. Member for Eastern Aberdeenshire. I make bold, however, to deny the statement made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. I understand that this particular case has been investigated. I think, therefore, the Committee ought to know the result of the investigations made by the Minister. I do not think a statement of that kind ought to be made in the presence of the Minister of Agriculture without some observations from the Minister.
    My information is quite contrary to the information supplied to the hon. Member who represents Kilmarnock Burghs. There is not a word of truth in his statement that these cattle were not
    130
    slaughtered till two months after. I should like my right hon. Friend, therefore, in the interest of the discussion of a matter of this kind, to state to the House here and now what is the information he has in regard to this particular point, and whether or not the compensation should be paid. My own view is that whether the cattle were pedigree or not that were slaughtered under the ægis of a public authority appointed for the purpose, that generous compensation should be paid. I do not approve of wholehearted slaughtering; but where the public authority placed in power, either by the suffrage of the people, or the Minister in charge, comes forward and says cattle should be slaughtered, in these circumstances it is a public duty that the owner of these cattle should be compensated. I am not discussing the merits of this particular question, but I would put this point to the hon. Member. I believe he is certainly in favour of democratic principles. I myself am firmly persuaded that the whole of this trouble could have been avoided if the administration of this particular Diseases Act had been handed over to the appropriate authority in Scotland. The Ministry of Agriculture in England has nothing of contact with, and no personal knowledge of, the actual conditions in Scotland. We have a Board of Agriculture in Scotland equivalent to the Board of Agriculture in England. We have a great many officials fully competent to look after this class of work. I should like the hon. Member who sits for Kilmarnock Burghs to join with me in pressing that all future administration of this sort should be handed over to the officials in Scotland. He comes forward at this stage of the evening and makes an accusation against a public authority. It is one which I trust the Minister of Agriculture will tell us is wholly unjustified.
    There is one other point which I should like to make while I am on my feet. I understand that a great many experiments are to be conducted. I am glad of that. There is nothing so valuable as experiments by great men in research. I should like to know, in the event of stations for experimental purposes being set up, whether schemes in Scotland are to be considered? I am not quite sure whether my right hon. Friend mentioned this matter in the course of his speech—part of which I heard—but I should like

    131
    him to give a reply, if possible, on this matter. Meanwhile, as I said before, I rose to get information about the more serious point, and I should like my right hon. Friend, now that this case has been investigated, to give us the information he has upon the subject, as to whether or not the allegation made against a public authority is true that certain cattle were not slaughtered until two months after they were heeled.
    6.0 P.M.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like one word, because I look at this matter from the point of view of Scotland. I do not wish it to be thought by this House that the main agricultural opinion of Scotland is against the policy of slaughter. Some remarks have fallen from various Members on this subject. While I agree absolutely that much can be done by research, and in an endeavour to ascertain the sources and means of communication of the diseases, one thing is perfectly clear to my mind, that if we are to maintain our position as a great breeding country so as to be able to export to other countries, we must at all cost, at all hazards, prevent this disease becoming endemic in our country. Therefore, I hope that this Committee which the Board is setting up will investigate with great care both the scientific and administrative side of this question. To show how the disease is spread, I may mention that in my country a farmer desiring to engage a farm servant went to another county in Scotland where the disease was rampant. He engaged a man and his wife actually from the farm where the disease had occurred, and these individuals were brought across into a clean country. The effect of this was very soon apparent, and the outbreak has now spread to other parts. I would like those who are investigating these questions on the Committees to take into consideration not only the question of disinfecting those who come in contact with these diseased animals, but it would be a cheap measure of protection if the actual clothes and everything belonging to those people were destroyed and replaced at the public expense. I feel certain that much more stringent regulations will have to be adopted in dealing with people who come from farms where the disease has broken
    132
    out. There is also the question of children going to school from an infected area. I hope all these points will be fully investigated. I rose really to say that I am in favour of the policy of slaughter, and I hope that this House will realise that the great mass of agricultural opinion is strongly in favour of it.
    Major BARNETT: I rather agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel L. Ward) said on the subject of indiscriminate slaughter and substituting research. I should not have dared to intervene in this Debate had it not been for a conversation I had on this subject at a dinner last night, where a friend of mine told me that an effective remedy for foot-and-mouth disease had been found in Spain and used with great success. A gentleman had acquired the English rights of this process, and he had offered to go to any part of this country without any remuneration, and he was prepared to provide the medicine and treat the cattle, and yet he was told that the Ministry of Agriculture could not entertain this because it was a commercial matter.
    This is not the only country where they have foot-and-mouth disease, and it often occurs in Rumania, where I happen to know they have remedies which are very effectual. I have seen bullocks attacked by this disease which had been treated by those local remedies, and in a week they were able to pull tremendously heavy casings up the hills. It is a fine sight to see these bullocks pulling enormous weights up those hills in the oilfields, a task which a horse would decline to take on, but from which the patient oxen never flinch, for the bullocks try and try again, and the team manage to get a very long string of casing up the hills. I have seen animals that have been treated by these local remedies, and I can reinforce what has been said on this point, although I know that agricultural opinion in this country is all against me. I believe that cures are being used successfully for this disease in Spain and Rumania, and I urge that instead of the present policy of indiscriminate slaughter some attention should be paid by the Board of Agriculture to an examination of these potential remedies.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 2 [Short Title] ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Captain DIXON:
    Section five of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, shall only apply animals diseased or suspected of being diseased or which have been exposed to the infection of any disease before admission to a foreign animals wharf or an approved landing place.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): This New Clause is out of order, because it would extend the grounds on which compensation should be granted, and that would constitute an additional charge.
    Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the Third time to-morrow.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplemental sum, not exceeding £34,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): If hon. Members look at the first figure in the third column of this Estimate relating to Unemployment Belief Works they will see there is an amount for £41,850. If £6,000 be added to that figure, the said £6,000 being the savings on Item GG for the current year, the figure will be £47,850, and that is the amount which it is proposed should be spent for the relief of unemployment in the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens this year. No doubt the Committee would like me to state the ultimate liability. The whole amount involved during this and next year is £60,760. The sum of £11,340 of this amount is on account of new works, and £49,420 on account of maintenance. The proportion that will probably be spent on labour may approximately
    134
    be said to be 60 per cent. unskilled and 10 per cent skilled labour, and the remaining 30 per cent will be spent on materials. The number of men at present employed on this work for the relief of the unemployed is approximately 1,020, and that number will hardly vary under the Supplementary Estimate for the period during which this work continues.
    If the Committee will allow me, I would like to give a few examples of the kind of work which is being undertaken in this way. At Richmond Park the sum of £5,625 is to be spent on lavatory accommodation. In this park, with the exception of some out of date accommodation, no lavatory accommodation is at present available, and this money is for the erection of five new lavatories and the reconstruction of another. With regard to maintenance, perhaps I may give one or two examples. At Bushey Park £6,250 is the amount to be spent on repairs to boundary walls, the remaking and draining of footpaths, cleaning ditches, draining portions of the park, relaying roads, and preparing tennis courts. Hon. Members will observe here that the tennis courts instituted in the Royal Parks are an extremely profitable concern, so there will be no loss there.
    The sum of £9,800 is to be spent at Greenwich Park on repairs to boundary walls, repuddling part of the lake, remaking roads and paths and levelling the ground for games, etc. I have given examples of the expenditure which I have already sketched, but I wish to observe before leaving the matter to the Committee that nearly all this work would have had to be done in any case before very long, and a very large part of the work, especially the maintenance part which is approximately four-fifths of the whole, is already overdue, and would have been done before now had it not been for the strong pressure to reduce the Estimates.
    Major BARNETT: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets this Vote, I should like to have an assurance from him, and I am sure the House will be glad to have it, that the work of restoring Regent's Park will be carried to an early conclusion. As the senior Member for the Regent's Park district, I have for the past five years, in season and out of season, been advocating the removal of those unsightly buildings which deprived

    135
    the public of so much space that should be devoted to their enjoyment and recreation, and by slow degrees I succeeded in obtaining from the right hon. Gentleman's Department the removal of those buildings. [An HON. MEMBER: "The elephant house"?] No, the elephant house has been left to the hon. Gentleman. I am not referring to the Zoo, but to Regent's Park. A large number of buildings were erected there during the War, and others were put up after the Armistice. The Ministry of Pensions was allowed to put up a very large range of buildings, where some 4,000 or 5,000 ladies were employed, no doubt greatly to the advantage of the nation, but to the disadvantage of my constituents. With great difficulty we got, first, the Ordnance Stores, and then the Pensions buildings, removed, but one crying evil still exists, and that is the large area devoted during the War to aircraft. It is now supposed to be in the possession of the Aircraft Disposal Co., which is an alias of the Imperial and Foreign Corporation. The Company has been there for years. Under some wonderful bargain which was made by the late Ministry of Munitions, all the aircraft that were in the Park after the War were sold to this Company, and the agreement contained a very loose clause which allowed the purchasers to retain possession of the buildings until they in their turn should dispose of the aircraft. But they never did dispose of them; as far as I know they never disposed of anything—there was a slump in aircraft. The result is that 11 acres of Regent's Park remain in the possession of these people or their successors, and I submit that it is a scandal that that should be allowed to go on. We have done our best with the Office of Works, and I did get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor a few months ago that at last the work of getting rid of the Aircraft Disposal Co. was to be carried through, and that the site would be sown with grass next autumn. Before the right hon. Gentleman gets this Vote, I want him to dot the i's and cross the t's of his predecessor's declaration, and to tell us that these buildings will be swept away root and branch and that the ground will be resown and restored to its proper use before the end of the present year.
    Sir MARTIN CONWAY: I wish to take this opportunity of calling attention to a great public nuisance, which is not, indeed, confined to the parks, for it is universal, but which is most in evidence, as far as Londoners are concerned, in the Royal Parks. I refer to the horrible habit which the public have of strewing about waste paper—a habit which is even observable in this Chamber. And it is not only waste paper that is strewn about, but, worse still, empty tins. I understand—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that merely to pick up the waste paper that is strewn about in the Royal Parks costs something like £400 a month in the summer, and goes down to £90 or thereabouts a month in the winter. Therefore, I am justified in calling attention to the matter on this Vote, for I have no doubt that employment is given to unemployed people in picking up this paper. If I am in order in doing so, I would point out that it is not only in London parks that this nuisance is continually in evidence, but also in all the parks surrounding London.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going a little wide of the Supplementary Estimate. He must bring his remarks under one of the Sub-heads.
    Sir M. CONWAY: I bring myself under the head of unemployment, because I take it that the picking up of paper is unemployment relief work, which is one of the sub-heads of this Vote. I do not wish to elaborate this question, but it is a very important one. We have got rid of certain bad habits. For instance, the habit of spitting all over the place is now nearly extinct, owing to the creation of a strong public opinion against it as one of the things that is not done, and I hope it may be found possible to create a public opinion also against this disgraceful habit of littering up public places. If any hon. Member doubts the urgency of this matter and the extent of the nuisance, let him go into one of the London parks the day after a Bank Holiday, when he will hardly see the grass for the paper that is lying about. The question of picking it up may, of course, be considered a God-send as a means of relieving unemployment, but I am sure that, if the matter were taken completely in hand, to pick up the paper

    137
    all over England would employ all the unemployed, almost without exception. I only raise the question now because this is an opportunity of calling public attention to it, and I hope that in the immediate future some effort will be made to raise public opinion against what is a real public nuisance and, indeed, a public scandal.
    Sir JOHN BAIRD: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has received the same criticism which I think all First Commissioners have received with regard to waste paper and to the buildings in Regent's Park. I trust that he will be successful in dealing with the buildings in Regent's Park, but I am afraid that the matter of waste paper is a more difficult one. I would only make this suggestion, that, if he cannot reduce the amount of literature available for people to scatter about, he might find it hopeful to increase the number of receptacles which exist in the parks for receiving it. That, I think, is a possibility. I only rose to ask two questions. The right hon. Gentleman said that the number of men at present employed is 1,020, and that that number will not vary appreciably over the period during which the work is continued. Am I justified, therefore, in thinking that the Office of Works has managed to get its work forward so expeditiously that it has reached the peak stage now, and that the total number of men that it is possible to employ are employed? I well remember that our Estimates were based more or less on that being the case, the object being to get as much employment as possible. If the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in reaching the peak now, I think it is a very satisfactory result of his efforts.
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could also answer one further question. He said that the numbers would remain at their present level during the continuance of the work. To the best of my recollection, the work was going to continue into the spring, and, indeed, into the early summer—that is to say, it would cover a period longer than is covered by this Supplementary Estimate, and would go well into the next financial year. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee any idea of the period that will be covered by this work, which is really unemployment relief work with a very
    138
    useful object. I am quite certain that no one in any quarter of the Committee will grudge money spent on the upkeep and maintenance of the parks. Although, perhaps, if economy were the only thing to which we were to have regard, a great deal of this work would not have been put in hand, it is true to say that the community as a whole will benefit. Not only those who live in London, but those who come from distant places in the country, will benefit from the money spent in keeping the parks up to a standard higher than that of any parks in any other part of the world, as I think we are entitled to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
    Mr. MAXTON: You do not know Greenock.
    Sir J. BAIRD: When the hon. Member has been longer in London, and has had more opportunities of examining the parks, I think he will agree that even we in Scotland have something to learn on this matter.
    Mr. TURNER: Beat Batley Park!
    Sir J. BAIRD: I did not intend to strike a note of controversy, and, therefore, hon. Members will not wish me to pursue that subject. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman these two questions, as to the duration of the work and as to whether the peak number of people employed has been reached.
    Mr. PALMER: I take this opportunity of drawing attention to the amount to be spent on unemployment relief work. The figures, as I view them, appear to be rather small, judging from what seems to me to be the immense amount of arrears of work to be done in the parks. I am one of those who believe that these parks have fallen into their sad state of disrepair during the lifetime of the preceding Government, and I am rather surprised that the Government cannot embark on larger and more ambitious schemes than clearing up waste paper and brushing aside old aerodromes which have fallen into disuse. I think there is a much more useful work to be done in developing our parks, particularly in a place like London and in areas where housing is so bad, and where parks afford the only ray of sunshine that the people living in those areas get. Another important matter to which I desire to draw the attention of the Committee,

    139
    in connection with these relief works, is that of the rates of wages paid and authorised by the Department represented by my right hon. Friend. I represent a constituency in which there is a Royal Park, namely, the Royal Park of Greenwich, where men are employed on relief work, not only at 75 per cent. of the rates obtaining—which in the first place appears to be an injustice—but actually at so low a rate as 38s. a week. I do not rise to oppose this Estimate; I should have been better pleased to find that it was larger, and to receive some sort of assurance from my right hon. Friend that he had come into his position on the Front Bench with a fixed determination to make our parks more beautiful, to develop and complete the parks as they should be, and also to extend them and make them more popular than they are at the present time.
    Sir JOSEPH HOOD: I should like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is now prepared to make any statement with regard to additional facilities in Richmond Park for golf, the present facilities having proved so successful, not only from the point of view of recreation, but also financially?
    Mr. MAXTON: In reference to the point raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir J. Baird) about placing receptacles in the parks for the receipt of waste paper, will my right hon. Friend also consider the placing of one at the end of the Front Opposition Bench?
    Mr. JOWETT: With regard to the buildings in Regent's Park, I am afraid I could not enter into a discussion of that matter because it is not included in the Supplementary Estimates. The removal of the buildings is provided for otherwise, but I can give the assurance that they are to be removed. With regard to the question of the right hon. Baronet, it is true that the number employed is at present at the peak, and to that extent I have to acknowledge that my predecessor, whose Supplementary Estimates these really are, provided well to that extent. The answer to his other question is that the work will run, not only through the remainder of this financial year, but on into the summer. As to the
    140
    complaint that enough money is not being provided, the Office of Works, although one would expect it to be a Department which would be readily adaptable for providing work for the unskilled unemployed, is largely an establishment engaged in very complicated work. Large buildings, of course, to any number could be put up to fill needs which are positively known to be required, but that is not work for the unemployed. It is skilled work, work of the kind which is not wanted at present when builders are required for houses. In so far as unskilled work can be provided, it is largely in the clearing of paths, and ordinary work of the kind covered by this Supplementary Estimate, and to the extent that it is possible to provide such work, it is provided for in the Estimates I have submitted.
    Mr. PALMER: Is my right hon. Friend's Department following the same procedure as other Government Departments, and looking up schemes for work?
    Mr. JOWETT: Oh, yes. We have already made a careful survey for the Estimates which are to be submitted later on for the coming year. The question of the proportionate payment for work given to the unemployed is now under consideration, and a statement will shortly be made upon it.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will any alteration that is made with regard to wages have a retrospective effect on the men who are now employed?
    Mr. JOWETT: My hon. Friend must await the statement. I cannot answer that now.
    Mr. BECKER: With regard to the suggested golf course in Richmond Park, if it is decided upon, are the Richmond unemployed to have the job of building it?
    Mr. JOWETT: I could not reply to that question at present. The construction of the golf course is under consideration.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    POST OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the

    141
    31st day of March, 1924, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including telegraphs and telephones."
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): The object of this Supplementary Estimate is to obtain Parliamentary authority for a liability in excess of the sum provided under the Post Office Railway Act, 1913. The sum provided by that Act was £1,100,000. It is now anticipated that the complete cost of completing and equipping the railway will total £1,650,000. The difference is due to the increase in the cost of labour since 1913. The Post Office will not require more money for the purpose during this financial year because there are savings on the Post Office Vote as a whole sufficient to cover the amount which is likely to be paid out before 31st March next. Accordingly a Supplementary Estimate is taken for a nominal sum of £10. The present position of the work is as follows: In October, 1920, tenders were invited for electrical equipment but the cost, even of the lowest tender, was so high in relation to pre-War estimates that it was decided to await more favourable conditions. In the autumn of 1923 it was considered that the time had arrived when operations could be resumed, and the Government of the day authorised my predecessor to take steps to proceed with the work as one of the schemes for the relief of unemployment. A contract for the completion of the permanent way and for minor tunnelling work has recently been placed with the approval of the Treasury, and the contractor is already at work. Tenders for the electrical equipment have also been called for. This tube railway runs from Paddington Station to the eastern district office in Whitechapel, and connects up with several sorting offices, and with Liverpool Street Station. Its total length is about 6½ miles. I think that is as much information as I can supply in relation to the work.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's account of this. I should like to have heard far more about this railway, which is probably about the most ridiculous enterprise that even the Post Office has ever entered into. It was a tube railway for the benefit of the Post Office, and the Post Office only, running between the Genera] Post Office in Newgate Street and Paddington
    142
    Station. The cost of that was simply enormous. At that time they had the Great Western Railway goods depot within a few hundred yards of the Post Office, at Smithfield, and, if necessary, a small addition from there would have enabled the Post Office stuff to be put on trucks and carried down to the train for Paddington. As I understand it, what is done at present is that you put your mails into your own private train at the Post Office, take them to Paddington, carry them out one by one and put them into whatever train they have to go by. This is an extraordinarily expensive measure. I had not heard before of this extension of which the right hon. Gentleman has told us. Perhaps he will tell me how far the line is open at present. Is it open to Liverpool Street now?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I understand the tunnelling is completed, but it has not been properly equipped with electrical appliances and it is likely to take a year or two before it is completed.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: At present, though it was begun in 1913, all we have to this day is a railway running from Paddington to the Post Office which carries a few mails, and a few postal officials when required. Originally they had the idea of connecting Euston and the other northern termini. That, apparently, has been abandoned altogether. But we still have the tube railway for the benefit of taking the Great Western mails, while you have the Great Western Railway within a few hundred yards. Now, I understand, there is to be an extension to Liverpool Street Station and to Whitechapel. Why the tube wants to go to Whitechapel I cannot imagine, unless it is in case of a dock strike, when they could get a little further down. I should like to know when the extension to Whitechapel was sanctioned. I have not followed the course of the railway for some years, and when the Postmaster-General began talking about it it revived an old memory of a thing which had been lying dormant in my mind. I should like to have some further justification of the necessity for this extension to Whitechapel. I do not think we can look too carefully at expenditure of this kind. This is the kind of expenditure which hon. Members in every quarter of the House pledged themselves over and over again to stand out against. That is departmental

    143
    waste. It is quite genuine on their part. The Post Office people think it will be convenient to have a private line, and they can do it much better than if they have to use ordinary railway or send vans to Paddington under Post Office contractors. But it is grossly extravagant, and when you come to deal with a sum like £1,000,000 for running a tube from Paddington to the Post Office, and this vast extra Vote of £100,000 more for extending it, it is certainly not a business proposition. The mails go quite late in the evening from Liverpool Street. The streets are clear, and there is no delay in sending down the mails by road. The expense, compared with this huge sum of running a tube railway, is very small. I do press the Postmaster-General to give us some further account of this reckless and unnecessary expenditure.
    Captain BERKELEY: It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) on a question of policy, but it does seem to me that this expenditure, small though it seems to be on the Vote, requires a great deal more justification than the right hon. Gentleman has advanced. May we know exactly how much has been spent on this enterprise up to the present, because it seems to me there is a possibility of making a very substantial saving. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us how many unemployed are likely to benefit by the carrying out of this scheme, and whether the same sum of money judiciously used would not provide an equal amount of employment of a more productive kind for the relief of the unemployed than could be reabsorbed by a scheme of this kind. It seems to me to be a railway going from nowhere to nowhere, and to make the proposition even more ridiculous the work, unless I misunderstood the Postmaster-General, on this remarkable piece of enterprise seems to have been abandoned since 1921. Surely the Postmaster-General will give us some further particulars and some better reason for supporting this Vote than that which he has put forward.
    Major-General SEELY: I hope the Postmaster-General will proceed with this scheme in order to relieve the traffic of London. I say this because for many years I have urged successive Postmasters
    144
    -General to speed up the traffic of the mails, either by this underground railway or by means of motor transport instead of carrying them, as they do now, by the old fashioned methods of horse transport. I hope that not only will he carry out this scheme but that he will bring about a great reform in the carrying of mails, which is urgently needed in this capital city of the Empire,, and that he will have nothing but underground railways or mechanical transport, and get rid of horse transport altogether.
    Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: The account which the Postmaster-General has given of the scheme which he is putting before the Committee is the most inadequate I have ever heard for a proposition of such magnitude.
    Mr. DUNCAN: It is an ancient one.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That may be, but there are many Members in this House who know nothing about it. It is some time now since I was at the Post Office, and I do not recollect the details and should be glad to have more information from the Postmaster-General, to bring me up to date. Some things may have happened since I was at the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman has a much better case than he has apparently been able to make out to the Committee. As far as I recollect, this is a labour-saving scheme. It is a scheme to substitute an automatic railway for the carrying of mails which are now carried above ground either by horse-drawn vehicles or in motor vehicles. As far as I remember, this railway is to be worked entirely by electricity and, if I recollect rightly, is not to have a driver upon the electric locomotive. There is to be an arrangement by which the mails will be dropped down a shute into the proper car and then, by pressing a button, they will be transferred to their destination, where again they will be automatically brought up to the surface. The right hon. Gentleman might have given us some sort of idea of what it is expected to save annually by the operation of the railway when it is completed. Is the saving that is expected from the operation of this railway going to be an adequate return upon the increased capital expenditure which will have to be incurred, as compared with the original Estimate? As I gather from the

    145
    figures before us, rather over £1,000,000 have been expended upon this project. As we have already put so much money into this enterprise, really the most economical course for us to take, I presume, would be to complete it and make the money that we have already put into it remunerative, whereas it is now standing idle and no return is being made.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The railway was open from Paddington Post Office years ago. This is an extension, I understand, to Whitechapel.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that is exactly the case, but perhaps the Postmaster-General will give us some further explanation and tell us where this railway starts and where it finishes. At any rate, a very large sum of money has been expended upon it, and we are getting no return. If it is possible at once to provide some employment by this extra expenditure and to make the capital already expended remunerative, there may be an excuse for going on with it.
    Captain BERKELEY: If this is such an important piece of work in the interests of the unemployed, will the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) say why he did not carry it out when he was at the Post Office?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will remember that I was not very long at the Post Office and even I could not carry out everything when I was there. This is one of the schemes that came before me; it was considered, but at the time we felt that the drop in the cost of the scheme was not sufficient to justify us in proceeding with it. We thought that the cost might fall still further and that opportunity might arise later on for carrying out the scheme. Apparently, that has occurred. While I was at the Post Office we did put in hand the acceleration of a considerable number of works in which the Post Office was engaged, for the purpose of giving employment, and that work has been carried on by my successors and, no doubt, will be carried on by the present Postmaster-General. Will the Postmaster-General tell us whether I am correct in saying that this scheme is to be justified as a labour-saving scheme and, if so, what are the savings he expects
    146
    to make when it is in full operation? I want to know whether the sum of £17,000 is entirely to be spent upon further tunnnelling work and preparation of the permanent way, or whether it includes any part of the electrical equipment which will have to be provided in order that the scheme may be put into working order. If it does not include any electrical equipment, can he say when he expects that he will be able to get that work done and when the railway will be in working order? With respect to the anticipated savings under other heads, amounting to £16,990, I do not think that the Postmaster-General told us what these savings represented. Perhaps he will be good enough to give us some information so that we may see where the savings are to be made and whether they are savings which ought to be made.
    Mr. WALTER REA: We do not know what is the present position in regard to this tunnel. If the £1,000,000 has been expended on the railway which is now working from Paddington, I suppose the further £600,000 is for an extension. If so, it will require very careful consideration before we commit ourselves to a further £600,000 expenditure in these hard times. If we have spent £1,000,000 and we are getting no remuneration from that, it would probably be a good bargain to complete the scheme and spend the further £600,000 upon it in order to get the benefit of the completed scheme, instead of its lying idle. At the present time the Committee is in a state of doubt as to whether the actual work has been completed and some tunnel is at work. It would shorten discussion if the Postmaster-General would tell us the actual facts.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I am interested in this discussion, coming as it does from certain right hon. Gentlemen who have had something to do with it in the past. This Estimate is an Estimate prepared by my predecessor. So far as I am able to answer the questions put to me, I will do so. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University spoke of this additional expenditure as if it were for the purpose of extending the railway from Liverpool Street to Whitechapel. That is not the case. The railway as it is at present was in the original proposal. The additional cost is due to increase in the cost of labour and

    147
    materials, resulting from the War. With regard to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member the Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley) as to the amount of money already spent, he will find at the foot of the Estimate that of the £1,100,000 originally embodied in the Act, £1,091,039 have been spent, in addition to which there have been spent £46,480 voted under Supplementary Estimates in 1922–23 and 1921–22, making a total of £1,137,519 already expended. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) desires to know what it is expected to save. My information is that it is not, and never has been, anticipated that the conveyance of the mails by this railway will cost less than the present method of conveying them in vans by road, but I am told that it will expedite the handling and remove a certain amount of van traffic from the congested part of London. That, I understand, was the main purpose of constructing this railway. It was decided upon in 1913. Operations were interfered with during the War. It was decided to go on with it, and in accordance with contracts which had been let a further £17,000 is required to complete payments due to the end of March.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the other two questions I put about the £17,000 and what are the other savings?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely), whether any part of this tube has worked, is working, or will work?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: In reply to the right hon. Member for Ladywood, I understand that the actual main tunnel is complete, and there are some subsidiary tunnels which have to be completed yet. It is for certain equipment that the contracts are now being let, and it is for payment of those contracts that money is required. I understand that the big electrical equipment for the tunnel has now been asked for, and I think tenders have not yet been settled.
    Mr. REA: Is it working!
    Mr. HARTSHORN: It is not working if it is not electrically equipped.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Somewhere about the 'fifties and the 'seventies a similar tube railway for the Post Office was made. It was to be worked by compressed air. The tunnel still exists, and I want to know will the right hon. Gentleman ask the men who are making this new railway to keep a good lookout for that old tunnel?
    Mr. BECKER: So far as I can judge from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he is really in favour of these tunnels. It strikes me that he is anxious to continue building more tunnels, because he has never answered any question by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) whether he proposes to proceed with other tunnels. If this tunnel be so useful for the purpose for which it is used—we have not found out what that is yet—why cannot he extend it all over London so that every main railway station is connected up with this wonderful system of underground railways? This is a legacy which has been left to him. He has seen it as an excellent idea of State control of railways, and he is very anxious to run this one to show how well the State can run railways. He says that the railway is not yet equipped with its electrical appliances, and that it is not working. Why is it so long in being equipped? Can it not be speeded up now, seeing the vast amount of unemployment there is in the country, and the amount of slackness of trade in the engineering, the iron, and electrical trades? That is surely up to him. I should like some assurance from him that he is going to complete this railway at the earliest possible moment, so as to find work for these men. Will he let the Committee know whether it is the intention to continue these railways, or is he just going to finish this one, and then give up the idea of running these underground electrical railways?
    Major-General SEELY: He has not made any answer to my question as to the extraordinarily contradictory policy the Post Office is pursuing. They ask us to spend this large sum on speeding up the mails while at the same time they take the slowest form of transport, horse transport, for carrying the mails. To the plain man it seems madness spending vast sums of

    149
    money to make some of the mails go very fast while we send all the rest of the mails by vehicles that go extremely slow. If the Postmaster-General will look at the horses which draw the mails, he will not only see that he is carrying the mails by slow traffic, but is choosing the slowest animals he can find.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I hope that there will be an Estimate. Money will be provided for carrying on this work in the Estimates for next year, and I assume that the whole discussion of everything connected with the continuance and completion of this railway will come up on that Vote. The works for which this payment is required were authorised by my predecessor. I should imagine that all questions which have been raised are questions not to be dealt with on this Supplementary Estimate, but on the general Estimate of the Post Office. As far as this Estimate is concerned, it is clearly provision for paying and discharging liabilities incurred by my predecessor, and I hope, having regard to the discussion we have had, that the Estimate will go through.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This is a token Estimate for £10, but in point of fact it is an Estimate which, if passed by the Committee now, will be relied on by the Postmaster-General and his Department for the authorisation of an expenditure which amounts to £512,481. It is all very well for him to say the Committee will have opportunities of discussing this matter in detail on the Post Office Vote. I am an older Member of the House than the Postmaster-General, and I assure him and other Members that if they hope on the Post Office Vote, on which one thousand and one subjects, many of them of high policy, are raised, that there is any time to be found to discuss this question, that hope is likely to be disappointed. This is the proper opportunity for a discussion of this matter.
    I think the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Rea) is a very important one in considering this question. Is the railway working at this moment, or is it not? Is the £1,000,000 producing no results, or is it producing results? The Postmaster-General replies to that question by saying that all the
    150
    expenditure for which we are asking was in the original Act. That is quite true. I remember taking some interest in the original Act. It was introduced by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). That Act consisted of authority for at least eight or nine lengths of railway, some of them two chains long, some ten, and others of varying short lengths. In that sense he is quite right when he says the original statutory authority for this line is contained in the original Act, but I am informed that a large number of those numerous railways are in fact, and have been, open for some time, and are working, and therefore this new money is for the extension and completion of further lengths of railway which it is quite true were authorised in the Act, but are not yet working and open.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) asked a question as to the form of this Vote. It is a token Vote for £10. Anticipated savings of £16,690 are relied on by the Postmaster-General to reduce the total amount of £17,000 to £10.. I put it to the Postmaster-General, that I should have thought that events during the last few days would have largely reduced the total of anticipated savings on the Post Office Vote. He is going to send 2,000 bags of Indian mails overland to Marseilles. I am therefore a little astonished that he has not more to say about that. I should like to know why in these arrangements he is departing from the principle of the original Act which was that this expenditure was to be financed by the Treasury by issues from the Consolidated Fund against which the Treasury were to charge annuities over a period of 30 years. That is to say, this expenditure was to be charged to capital. Now I observe with great astonishment that the right hon. Gentleman to-day proposes that while one million of the expenditure should be charged to capital, the remaining £512,000 should be charged to revenue. I should have thought the one thing you wanted to do at the present moment was to try to avoid further burdens on the taxpayer. I should also have thought, following the Trade Facilities Act, that works which were undertaken, as these appear to be undertaken, very largely for the relief of unemployment, might very properly have been charged to capital and not revenue,

    151
    and I hope before we pass from this Vote we shall have some explanation on that point. I do not want to make things more difficult for the right hon. Gentleman than I can help, but I felt bound to put these considerations before the Committee, and I hope that we shall have some reply from the right hon. Gentleman.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that my hon. Friend never intended to embarrass the Postmaster-General, but I may at least try to clear up some of the difficulties which have been raised. The original scheme was introduced by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). That scheme had two objects. The first claim made was that the motor traffic had not developed then as it has to-day, and that there was considerable delay in dealing with the mails under the old system of horse traffic, and the idea of a tube railway was suggested not only to expedite the traffic but to relieve congestion, so far as London was concerned. It is true, as my right hon. Friend said, that there was not one particular scheme but that there was a number of schemes. That was the original intention of the Government. That scheme was proceeded with and in 1921 the tunnelling was completed. In October, 1920, tenders were invited for electrical equipment, but as the cost under the lowest tender was found to be so high, in relation to the pre-War estimates, it was decided to wait for a more favourable opportunity. In other words, though nearly a million pounds had already been spent, the full scheme could not be made operative, because it was felt that the original estimate would be exceeded so much owing to the situation caused by the War.
    In October 1921, the matter was again considered in the light of the fall in cost which had already taken place. Again the Cabinet decided that the estimates were too high, and that the matter should stand over. That was the second time the Cabinet considered the scheme after the tunnelling had been completed. In the autumn of 1923—that is only five months ago—the Cabinet again considered the question, and authorised the Postmaster-General to proceed immediately
    152
    with the work. The estimate of my right hon. Friend, therefore, is not an estimate for which we are responsible at all, but it is to give effect to a considered Cabinet decision of five months ago to render useful the expenditure of £1,000,000 which will be useless until we spend another £500,000. In other words my right hon. Friend is merely defending the expenditure of £500,000, previously sanctioned by the late Cabinet, which is necessary to make remunerative the £1,000,000 already expended. That is the short history of the case, and I would put it to the Committee that my right hon. Friend is hardly called upon to make any excuse for the existing situation.
    Another question put was as to the intention of His Majesty's Government with regard to the further schemes which were contemplated, because even when this is expended and this scheme is finished there is a number of other, tubes apparently foreshadowed. On that point the Government have come to no decision. With regard to the further point which has been raised, if this expenditure could be met out of revenue it ought not to be for the House of Commons to complain. I cannot conceive why there should be criticism of a proposal to meet expenditure out of revenue if it can be so met. It is far better to cut your cloth according to your measure. My right hon. Friend should not be criticised for a proposal which is rather a virtue than a fault. I have desired to make the position clear, because I think it unfair that my right hon. Friend should be asked to defend something for which he is not responsible and should be criticised by those who are responsible for it.
    Mr. T. HENDERSON: I have listened carefully to this discussion, and I think that the hon. Member opposite asked a pointed question when he inquired if this railway is working. I want to know if there is any railway at all? I would suggest that between this Estimate and the main Estimate, at some future date, an opportunity might be given to Members of this House to find out if there is any railway, as I am not quite sure on the point.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: May I ask the Postmaster-General if he will go through this tunnel and tell us the exact

    153
    state of affairs which exists, and meanwhile postpone the Vote until he comes back and gives us his personal experience?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not attach the slightest blame or responsibility to the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the Estimate for this tube railway, but he does not impress me in the least by saying that something has been approved of by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely) or by someone on my own Front Bench. I am not here simply to ratify everything which is done by the Front Bench on either side. What I complain of is that we have not got proper information from the right hon. Gentleman in reference to this Vote for which he is responsible. Whether the scheme is right or not I cannot say. The Committee has not been properly instructed. This is a very large sum. Where is it being spent? Has it been spent, or is it going to be spent? It is explained there was a tube railway authorised from Paddington to the Post Office, and the right hon. Gentleman said that no use has been made of that tube. If that is true I shall be very much surprised. I believe that it was in regular use, and, according to what I have heard, a more ridiculous railway never existed. My right hon. Friend the late Postmaster-General gave us the most graphic account of this railway. There were no engine drivers, the bags were shot down an inclined plane, just like the pigs in Chicago when they are being turned into sausages, and on this wonderful tube railway a button was pressed and the bags were distributed at Paddington in the different trains for Plymouth, Cardiff and the other big centres.
    That is a very tempting labour-saving appliance, but I doubt whether this scheme has any of these brilliant attachments. I believe that it is to be an ordinary tube railway, the mails being brought by hand from the tube railway to the different Post Office vans at Paddington. It is ridiculous that there is no one here to tell us the facts. I am told that there is a tunnel completed from the Post Office, with a station at Liverpool Street, to Whitechapel. I would like to know when that was done.
    154
    Has there been any use made of the Liverpool Street station? Have any mails been disembarked there? My own view is that the tube from Paddington to the Post Office is open, and that the rest of the tube to Liverpool Street and Whitechapel is not open. The wisest thing is for the Committee to say, "We ought to have more information before we vote this money. We ought to know whether or not this tube has ever been used and, if so, what part?" As regards the money, I believe that it is intended for equipping in some form or another the extension from the Post Office to Liverpool Street station and on to Whitechapel. If that is so, we should know how to deal with the matter, but we are left entirely in doubt at the present moment. It is not right to vote the Money in absolute ignorance on this point. I hope, therefore, that the Government will adjourn this Motion.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: It is very interesting to see the desire which exists for information as to this railway. I confess frankly that I am asked for a great deal of information which is not in my possession, and, if it is the desire of the Committee that the consideration of the Estimate should be deferred until I am supplied with that information, I will undertake if the matter is adjourned, to obtain the information which the Committee desire.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I would like to express thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the course that he has taken, which I think is a very proper one. I am clear that the Committee ought not to vote the money without having fuller information than the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to supply, and I welcome very much his offer to adjourn.
    Mr. TURNER: I wish to ask the Post-master-General will he see that the people who are employed upon this unemployed work get a proper rate of wages and not the mere 75 per cent.?
    Captain BERKELEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the number of unemployed whom it is expected to relieve by this scheme?
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS V.
    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £168,460, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote, including the transport and relief of refugees in the Near East, and the relief of distress in Japan."
    Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: I rise to call attention to one of the items on which we are asked to vote money, namely, on page 12, the item LL, "refund to Indian Revenues in respect, of diplomatic and consular services in China, Persia, Arabia and Siam." As a matter of fact, this Supplementary Estimate is required in respect of the consular guards in Persia, and I desire for a few moments to draw attention to the history of the expenditure under this particular head. In 1900 Lord Curzon was Viceroy of India, and his policy was one of peaceful penetration in Persia. As the Committee may remember, he started the Quetta-Nushki railway, with the intention of extending it ultimately into Persia, and at the same time he extended these consular services in Persia to a large number of towns in the interior. At that time the arrangement was that the Indian Government was to pay £6,000 a year to the British Government in respect of the consular services. From 1900 to 1904–5 the British Government received every year from the Indian Government a certain amount of money in respect of these services. The arrangement also was that any expenditure over £6,000 should be divided in equal parts between the British Government and the Indian Government, and it is in respect of this excess that we are asked to vote this Supplementary Estimate to-night.
    In the years up to 1909–10 we made no payments. In 1909–10 the first payment was something over £6,000. The amount increased very rapidly until 1913–14, by which time we were paying £96,800 as our share of the excess. After the War the amounts were still greater, and in respect of 1920–23 we paid £378,680, and we are now asked to vote another £150,000 in
    156
    respect of those three years, so that our share for the three years of the expenditure in excess of £6,000 is going to be £528,680. That is to say, that on those three years the Government of India has spent over £1,000,000 on the consular guards in Persia. In the present year, when the original Estimates came up, we voted £32,500 for this service, and we are asked now to vote another £75,000, making a total of £107,500, in respect of our share of the cost of consular guards in Persia. I think that this item requires a good deal of examination on the part of the Committee. What does all this mean? If you look at the Estimates for the year you will find provision for 11 consuls in Persia, but if you look up the "Statesmen's Year Book," you will find that we have consular officers not in 11 but in 20 places.
    Are these guards supplied to each of the consular officers? What are they there for? Is it suggested that they are there to control the trade routes, or to protect the consuls? If they are there to control the trade routes, what right have we to go into an independent country and control the trade routes? If they are there to protect the consuls, is it necessary that we should have an expenditure of £350,000 a year for this purpose in Persia alone? I presume that these guards are confined to Persia, though I saw in to-day's "Times" that we have withdrawn guards from the Persian Gulf, and thereby gratified the Persian authorities. Does that include the guard at Muscat? Have we guards in Arabia? Is the whole of the expenditure confined to the Persian area? Some hon. Members know Persia and the Persian people. I believe that as I a rule the ordinary Persian—I am not now referring to the hill people—is not a combative person. In the north-west, in Luristan, doubtless there would be a necessity for guards if we had any consular officer in that area. As to Kurdistan, I cannot speak, but I do not think we have any consular officers there.
    This railway, I understand, has been pressed on through the Baluchistan desert to a town in Persia, and there we have a consular office, and, doubtless, guards. What is the strength of those guards, and what is the necessity for them? Where are they? What control does the British Exchequer exercise over the policy which results in the spending of this money? It

    157
    is not enough to say that the Indian Government demanded it, and that we agreed to it. Is there no limit to the amount that we are supposed to find for the Indian Government, if there should enter into its head the idea of increasing the consular guards in Persia?
    Lieut.-Colonel T. WILLIAMS: I wish to raise a question about the third of the sub-headings of this Vote. First, there is the question of the transport and relief of refugees from Asia Minor and Thrace, £58,000. I wish to know whether any inquiry is being made into this matter, because this Vote is really due to the deplorable policy of the Coalition Government. The expenditure ought never to have arisen, and it is necessary, even at this late date, that an inquiry should be held into the whole of the policy which has led to this expenditure, and to the very great loss of life which resulted from what I can only call a dishonest policy. The history of the matter is well known. We made definite promises to the Turks; the Prime Minister of that day made a definite promise to the Turks in January, 1918. After the Turks had surrendered, and we had them "down and out," we deliberately reversed our policy, and under the pressure of various interests, I suppose financial and otherwise, we loosed the Greeks into Asia Minor, with the result that we had three years of open war, massacres, barbarities in general, ending with the Greek debacle and the events which have led up to the necessity for this particular Vote.
    The country has become involved in expenses of this sort because of the deliberate breaking of the word of the Government, and there should be an inquiry. It is not merely the fact that the country has been put to this expenditure. There are very much greater issues raised. There was a time when the word of this country had a great deal of respect all through Asia, but as a result of the policy which was pursued by the Coalition Government, our word now is absolutely in the mud all through Asia. Although the present Government is not responsible for the events which have led up to this Estimate, yet it would be very satisfactory if the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would tell us that some inquiry was being held, so that responsibility could be placed in the proper quarters, so that we might satisfy ourselves,
    158
    and pave the way to a better feeling towards us in the East and the Near East.
    The next sub-head to which I would refer is K7, "Wireless messages sent on behalf of Armenian Government." When one turns to the details on Page 12, one sees in the last sentence an implication that we are rather looking to the re-establishment of a stable Government of Armenia. When one considers the past history of this country in relation to the Armenians, I think I am justified in taking that as the implication. I protest against any expenditure in future on behalf of the Armenians, and I would like a promise from the Government that there is no intention of fostering, in any way, the idea of an independent Armenia, There is no doubt that the worst friends of the Armenians have been those who meant to be their best friends. The policy associated with the name of Mr. Gladstone has been deplorable in its results to everybody concerned in that part of the world, and to us.
    The Armenians were very well treated for hundreds of years by the Turks, until Russia, in the first place, started using them as pawns for purely political purposes; they exploited them as Christians, solely as pawns. When conditions were produced that made massacres inevitable, people in this country, who were entirely ignorant of the Near East and its religions, jumped in and assumed that they were being massacred because they were Christians. It was nothing of the sort. They were massacred because they were the instigators to revolt against the Government of their country. The conditions that were produced were much like those that existed in Ireland recently. If you produce those conditions, it does not matter who the people are, you will have massacre. Therefore, I shall protest in every way against any action which, however well-meaning it may be, is designed in any way to set up an independent Armenia. From time to time one sees letters from Armenians—in this case it was a letter in the "Morning Post"—saying something to this effect: "For goodness sake leave us alone with the Turks. If you will only leave us alone with the Turks we can get on with them." I can assure hon. Members that that is

    159
    absolutely the truth. If you will stop interfering with the Armenian he can get on perfectly well with the Turk.
    Another point I wish to raise refers to the consular guards, about whom we have heard something. I have spent a long time in Persia and was one of the officers, for a time, and had one of these consular guards. There is no doubt that there has been a very great waste of money in this matter, and I support everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson). There is no doubt the origin of these guards—except in the Gulf where they have been for a long time—was due to the purely Imperialistic policy which we were pursuing at that time in Persia. The guards were absolutely no use. I had 10 men, a force obviously of no use as far as defence was concerned, but they were there simply to impress upon the Persians what a powerful nation we were. It was a race between ourselves and the Russians. The Russians had consular guards of about the same size, but we were always trying to get larger consular guards so as to make a greater impression upon the local people.
    We have not been given any idea in this Vote as to where these guards are. In pre-War days they were scattered all over Persia from the North right away down to the South at places like Tabriz, Meshed, Shiraz and other towns. As regards the Gulf itself, the notice to which reference has been made only referred to a reduction of the guards there and did not state that they would be removed altogether. I do not suggest that the guards can be taken away altogether from the Gulf, because there we have responsibilities which date from about 300 years ago and the conditions are entirely different from the conditions inland. On the score of expense and on the score of our attitude towards the people of an independent country we should give up the guards entirely in inland Persia and retain only the very few who may be needed at the Gulf. As I say, the conditions at the Gulf are very different, and I would be prepared to support the Government in retaining them there for a certain time, but we should keep in mind the humiliating effect which the presence of these guards has on the people of an independent country. Many old customs have been kept up there, but from our own
    160
    point of view, it would be infinitely better if we got rid of every single man who is not absolutely essential at the Gulf, and for that reason I hope the Government will consider the avoidance of this unnecessary expenditure and will take steps to put us on better terms with Persians in the future.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: I cannot agree with the last speaker in his proposal to reduce the consular guards in Persia. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member when he said that they should be retained at the Gulf. We have a telegraph line there and a great deal which requires protection. The hon. Member referred to Meshed. I have been Consul-General there and I know how necessary it is to have men there. There was a small guard at Meshed, and, I believe, at some other places, but we have not heard where they are stationed at present; and while we might seek for that information, I think it would be most inadvisable if the Government were to think of ceasing to share the expense of a few guards at all our different consulates in Persia, some of which are situated at very out-of-the-way places. I concur to a certain extent with the hon. and gallant Member's remarks about Armenia and the Armenians, and I hope matters in that part of the world are settling down. As regards massacres, I never heard that there was much to choose between the two sides in that matter, and during the War I think one side was about as bad as the other. Let us hope that these things are done with now, and that we may leave these peoples to rest as they are. I cannot agree that our prestige and our word are now "in the mud," to use the hon. and gallant Member's expression, in the East. That is a very sweeping statement, and when one considers what General Sir Charles Harington told us of the feeling of the Turks in Constantinople, I think it shows at once how much our work is looked up to.
    Lieut.-Colonel WILLIAMS: That is a personal attitude to Sir Charles Harington.
    Sir C. YATE: I think our word as a nation is looked up to in the East, and I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member. In fact, I do not think it is right that he should speak against his own countrymen in the East in that manner.
    Lieut-Colonel WILLIAMS: May I say I was not in any way speaking against my countrymen.
    Sir C. YATE: I will not add anything further than to say that I do not know whether this item in the Vote, with regard to the guards in Persia, relates in any way to the removal of the regiment which was in Bushire. I think we ought to maintain our agreement with the Indian Government to share the cost of the Consulates in Persia, and that each Consul should be given a few guards to be with him and to go with him wherever he goes, and for this, season I do not oppose this item in the Vote.
    Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to another item in this Vote relating to services arising out of the War in relieving prisoners of war in enemy countries. This item is for relief expenses incurred on behalf of British prisoners of war by the United States Minister at Brussels while in charge of British interests during the War. I suppose the prisoners of war were civilian and not military, and I suppose the expenses were incurred during the first period of the War, before the United States joined the Allies. I think I am right in saying this is the first occasion on which the House of Commons has been asked to vote any money in connection with these unfortunate persons, and the fact that their case is a very hard one cannot be disputed. Hon. Members who sit behind the Government profess to believe in equality, and I suppose the equality which they consider so admirable should be applied to civilian prisoners of war as well as to other people. I direct the Committee's attention to the hardship which British prisoners of war in Belgium have sustained when compared with civilian prisoners of war in Germany. At the outbreak of War there were British ships at Hamburg and Antwerp. The ships in Hamburg were illegally detained by the German Government, and in some cases, on 3rd August, 1914, after the ships had gone more than three miles from the German coast, German vessels of war forced them to return to Hamburg and there the British seamen were detained, and when War broke out they were subjected to the greatest hardships. For these men His Majesty's Government
    162
    have provided reasonable compensation. They are to get compensation, assessed by a sympathetic tribunal for all the wrong and injury they have suffered and for all the loss of property they have sustained. I think the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs will admit that, so far as the British seamen at Antwerp were concerned, no such compensation has been given, and, as far as I know, this Vote, which is only a comparatively small sum to refund expenses already incurred by the United States Minister, is the only sum which has ever been given, or is likely to be given, to the unfortunate people who were made prisoners in Belgium.
    As between the prisoners in Belgium and those in Germany I submit the former have a much better claim. After all, people who went to Germany took the risk of the misfortunes which might befall them on going into such a country, but British subjects who went to Belgium were entitled to rely upon the guarantee of the neutrality of that country. British seamen who went to Antwerp were entitled to rely upon that neutrality to preserve them from outrage and injury, and the Under-Secretary will find that the Foreign Office in earlier days recognised the prior position in which the civilian prisoners of war in Belgium were placed, and actually—I will not say recognised their claims—but took notice of their claims as being claims which eventually should be, met, and met by the wrong-doer. I think in the Treaty of Versailles, which some people wish to have revised, I no provision is made for these people. Why no provision was made for them I do not know, but I have been told that the late President Wilson was so outraged by the invasion of Belgium that he would not countenance even the appearance of any semblance of legality being given to it, and would not countenance any compensation provisions for the wrongs done in Belgium being inserted in the Treaty. Be that as it may, I trust if the Versailles Treaty is to be revised, it will be revised in favour of British subjects who suffered in Belgium. Unless and until that happens I ask the Under-Secretary to consider whether something cannot be done to meet the claims of these people.
    Many of them suffered in the most pitiable manner and stories have come to my notice of wrongs and miseries for

    163
    which no pecuniary compensation would be adequate but for which pecuniary compensation would be, as it always is, some salve to wounded feelings. The appearance of this Vote leads me to hope that if the British Government is going to refund to the United States Minister what he paid in relieving some of the distresses of these prisoners, they might go a step further and provide for the British civilian prisoner of war at Antwerp some compensation comparable to that received by his more fortunate—or more unfortunate, as hon. Members please—brother who was detained at Hamburg. I have spoken of seamen, because those cases are comparable. The cases of the seamen at Hamburg and Antwerp were similar. There were other people who were pursuing their peaceful avocations in Belgium when the German invasion came, and I venture to think that these people are entitled to the sympathetic consideration of His Majesty's Government. I would not be in order if I were to deal with the question of property in Belgium. That is a very hard case for which no provision has been made.
    8.0 P.M.
    Captain EDEN: I would like to refer to the question of the consular guards in Persia. These guards can be maintained only for one of two reasons. They can be justified only because they are necessary for the safety of those whom they are there to protect. That is a subject on which it is difficult to decide without knowledge of conditions in Persia, and such knowledge it is difficult to secure. Should that not be the case—and I cannot help feeling that it is not the case—then these guards are required for another reason, and that is prestige. Here we enter upon a difficult and a somewhat contentious ground. I would ask the Committee to remember that the guards, which may seem to us, and to Europeans generally, to be very unnecessary, do in point of fact in a certain way convey a sense of power. It is even reasonable to believe that the withdrawal of these guards might on a certain kind of Persian mind create an impression of weakness on the part of the country which had withdrawn them. In view of that danger, and also of the unstable conditions in Persia and the danger that may come to Persia and British interests
    164
    in Persia from one of Persia's neighbours, it would, I think, be highly inadvisable to withdraw these guards, if they really serve, as I am confident they do, as an outward symbol of British power in Persia. From that point of view, they do mean something to the Oriental mind, and it would be unwise, and it might certainly be mischievous, to reduce these guards. One would like to know exactly in what districts these guards are employed and the real purpose for which they are used. If their withdrawal would in any way affect British prestige in Persia, which is none too high at the present time, it would be indeed unwise to risk endangering our prestige still further.
    Mr. T. HENDERSON: I would like to refer to the question of the roubles which were said to be deposited in British care in Petrograd and for which we are now I asked to pay £21,000 as compensation. If the loss of the roubles has been proved, surely the proof must have been advanced with the help of some books in which financial statements bad been kept. I cannot understand, if it was possible to find proof from a book-keeping transaction, why the roubles themselves were not saved. When one thinks that there are some thousands of people in this country who cannot get what they are entitled to get from the Government, namely, losses through enemy action during the War, it is rather surprising to find that a sum of £21,000 is wanted by people whom it is very questionable, so far as this item is concerned, whether they ever existed or not. I want to know from the Under-Secretary who they were. Were they British workmen in Russia at the time, or British officials. I want to know also what is the kind of proof as to the ownership of the roubles. I want to know further from the Under-Secretary if he will be kind enough to inform us at what time in Russia the British authorities were interfered with by the Russian Government. At what time was it impossible to safeguard deposits made with the British authorities in Petrograd? If the Under-Secretary would be kind enough to give us that information, not only with regard to the time mentioned in this item, but as to the people who deposited the roubles and the reason for the failure to give satisfaction in the way of proof, I would be obliged to him.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I do not think that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Ponsonby) will have any difficulty in replying to the point just made, and I do not propose to say anything on that particular point. But I should like to say something on the question of the consular guards, on which I think there has been more criticism than on any other part of this Estimate. I cannot quite understand the point of view of my hon. Friend (Captain Eden), because at first I understood him to express agreement with the opinion expressed from the opposite side. But he went on to say, apparently with some local knowledge of the country, that the procedure followed here was amply justified. I cannot speak myself with any local knowledge of that part of the world, but I must say, from all the information I have had with regard to the conditions in Persia, that I cannot at all share the view of the hon. Member for Kennington (Lieut.-Colonel T. Williams). I thought he himself in one part of his speech gave a complete refutation of the criticism which he advanced in another. He said that the fact of having these guards at our consular ports might have, and I understood him to say did have in many cases, the effect of impressing the opinion of the people of that country. He went on to say, which is quite true, that there is a certain amount of competition between representatives of different Powers, between Russia and ourselves mainly, of a commercial character. It is, of course, immensely important for us that the openings for our trade in Persia should be maintained as far as possible, and that nothing that we can do should be left undone for reasonably encouraging these openings. Almost everyone knows with regard to the East, whether they have been there or not, that a certain display of strength and preparedness to defend one's own rights is practically essential in almost any part of the East where a Western nation desires to maintain itself. I should go further, and say with such knowledge as I have, that the guards, at any rate in a great many places, have a more real justification than that. They are required to secure the safety of our people in that country.
    I am quite certain my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, if he gives the information at his disposal, can tell the Committee that our relations in Persia at
    166
    the present time are very delicate indeed, and that it would be very easy to carry out a policy in Persia which would destroy the connection, and prestige which we have had there in the past. I am sure he will also tell the Committee that we have in that country a representative in whom, as an adviser, the Government can put the most complete confidence. He is a wise and well-informed adviser who is very familiar with the people with whom he comes in contact, and I feel sure that, as long as the Government follow the advice they will get in that quarter, they will not do anything extravagant or unnecessary in the way of maintaining the guards. There is only one other matter on which I would like to say a word. I find that an hon. Gentleman belonging to the Labour party has taken a view, which is very novel in this House, and certainly very novel coming from such a quarter, with regard to the Armenians. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) had been in his place in the House, because he would probably have leaped to his feet with a hot and indignant rejoinder at the statement that the Armenians had had nothing to complain of about the Turks for hundreds of years and that the idea that they had suffered was a myth that ought to be put an end to at once. I have heard views of that kind expressed before, though not in this House, but I certainly have not heard them from Liberal or Labour Members, and it is very interesting to hear that such views are finding acceptance in very unexpected quarters. I did not intend to go into that matter and defend the more traditional view with regard to the sufferings of the Armenians; I leave it to hon. Members who can claim more than I can claim to defend what might be called the Gladstonian tradition. Whatever may be the history of the case, I do not think it is relevant to this particular Estimate. However you may press back into past history to account for various movements and so on, that is not very profitable when we are confronted with the fact that at a given date these unfortunate people were certainly subjected to very great suffering and cruelty, and that the British Government at that time thought that the least they could do under the circumstances was to try and minimise that suffering as much as possible

    167
    and to do anything they could to save these unfortunate people. That is really, I think, the only consideration before us at the present moment, and I think my hon. Friend will have no difficulty in getting the Committee to assent to that item.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Ponsonby): I am grateful for the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), and, in some ways, I feel that it would be very much more appropriate if he were defending these Estimates than that I should be defending them, because we are very much embarrassed by the leavings of the feast that was prepared and cooked by the last Government, and we have to get those leavings out of the way before we can present our own banquet. But I think the Committee is rather apt to conclude that we are in favour of the policy represented in these Votes, when all that we are concerned with is that the House of Commons shall have full information before these Votes are passed. They are Estimates incurred by the policy of the previous Government. In some of the speeches that have been made on this particular Vote, an attempt has been made to lure me into questions of policy, which I shall very stoutly resist. I only intend to take up the points where I am called upon to make an explanation. The first point, which was touched on by a good many hon. Members, was the question of the expenses in respect of "Diplomatic and Consular Services in China, Persia, Arabia, and Siam," under the heading LL. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Simpson) really explained the case very clearly, but I do not think he quite explained sufficiently that the expense incurred covered not only the consular guards, but the actual consuls themselves. The system, which has been in practice now for some time, is that Persia is divided into, roughly speaking, two spheres. His Majesty's Government are responsible for the upkeep and appointment of 10 consuls, and the Indian Government of 12. There is consultation with regard to the appointment of these consuls, and the expenditure is met by each Government, and then
    168
    the accounts are compared, the total expenditure is added together, and each Government takes a half share.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Are any of them Britishers?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I think they are all British. This is, undoubtedly, as the hon. Member for Taunton and others have said, an extremely clumsy method of proceeding.
    Mr. SIMPSON: The hon. Member said there were 22 consulates, and the total is £350,000.
    Mr. PONSONBY: It covers the salary of the consuls, as well as the consular guards. This method, as I say, is very clumsy. It means that the accounts are made up at the end of the year and that very often a long period intervenes. There is constant consultation between the Indian Government and His Majesty's Government, and the result is that His Majesty's Government have to pay, generally speaking, the adverse balance, because the consuls maintained by the Indian Government are more numerous and expensive. This method is wasteful and inconvenient, and it is for these reasons that the India Office and the Treasury have been in consultation as to whether some different method cannot be found for arranging for the payment of these consular officers and their guards. They think it would be better that each Government should be responsible for its particular set of consuls and should pay for them out of its own revenue, and by that means a considerable saving could be effected. The discussions are now going to be continued, and the Treasury, the Foreign Office, and the India Office will confer together with a view to adopting a better scheme, which should involve a saving and also would be more practical.
    I do not think there is any question of the abolition of the consular guards. I think it has been rightly said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that sometimes they are necessary actually for safety's sake, and no doubt a certain prestige is added to a European official by the presence of a guard. I have not been in Persia myself, but I know that in Turkey the presence of Kavasses round diplomatic or consular officials does certainly help them in the exercise of their responsibility, so that there is no question

    169
    of the abolition of these consular guards, and there is—and I hope it will work out into a practical plan—hope of getting a different method from the method at present followed, by which both Governments may effect some saving, and the consular officers and their guards may be appointed in another way. The hon. Member for Taunton asked whether there were consular guards at Muscat. No, there are consular guards in Arabia, at Bahrein and at Koweit, but not at Muscat. I cannot tell him exactly what is the strength of the consular guards for these districts. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kennington (Lieut.-Colonel Williams) raised several questions, and also touched on this particular question of the guards, on which he was able to give his own personal experience. He complained of waste of money, with which I am ready to agree, but I think he went rather too far when he said, in regard to our position in the East, that the British word is not looked up to any more in the East. No doubt the policy pursued in recent years has not been one which His Majesty's present advisers would have adopted, but I think, perhaps, that, with the advent of the present Government to power, the British word will rise in esteem.
    I must not be drawn into the whole question of Armenia, because, really, the Vote covers only a very narrow point, with regard to the payment of the wireless messages which were sent for the Armenian Government at a time when they were in great distress and unable to communicate with their representatives abroad. It seems to me that the payments were fully justified, and I do not think I can profitably enter at present into the whole question of our policy with regard to the Armenians, nor into the first point which the hon. Member raised, with regard to the policy pursued in Asia Minor at the time when so many refugees had to leave Smyrna. That expenditure, which is on the Estimate, is £58,000. With regard to the refugees who had to hurry away from Smyrna, a large number were Maltese, and, if not born in Malta, were of Maltese origin. Some of them have been sent back to Smyrna, but life there is anything but secure, and they have still to be helped. There are a great many who have not yet been sent back. It is an obligation
    170
    which is the outcome of a policy which we on these benches think was disastrous, but, as I say, it is one of the obligations we are bound to undertake, however much we may disagree with the policy which made it necessary.
    There were one or two other points raised, about which I should like to give all the information I can. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten) raised a point with regard to the relief of prisoners of war in enemy countries, for which there is an item of £9,800. This expenditure was incurred by neutral representatives in enemy countries during the War on behalf of British prisoners of war. Several advances were made by Votes of credit, but there was considerable delay in rendering accounts, especially those which came from the United States, and this is the balance that is over, and has to be met. The other question raised as to prisoners of war and the property of British subjects in foreign countries is far too large a question for me to embark upon, when I am only concerned with the very narrow point of giving information on the specific sums mentioned in the Estimate.
    An hon. Friend behind me raised the question of the expenditure in Petrograd, and I should like to give him all the information I could get in regard to it. The sum in question is £21,000. It consists of only two claims, one of £1,000, which is an old claim that apparently, by a telegraphic error, was underestimated, and this £1,000 is to go towards making up the sum which was claimed. The other is a sum of £20,000, which it has taken some time to pay. The delay of the payment of these claims has been due to the late date at which they were presented, and to the difficulty, as, I think, my hon. Friend noticed, of obtaining satisfactory evidence of the deposit of the money at the Embassy. The only method of providing funds for the purpose of the British Commission at that time was by obtaining roubles from British subjects and others, who were willing to deposit them at the Embassy, on the undertaking that their sterling equivalent should be paid by bankers in our country. Previous payments on this account were made in 1919 and 1920 under this sub-head, "Losses in Petrograd." Owing to the looting of the Embassy House and the hurried departure of the

    171
    British representatives from Petrograd, it was impossible to bring away the necessary data for the preparation of accounts, receipts and expenditure, but, gradually, these have been very carefully gone into, and this claim has come forward, though late. We find that it is necessary to discharge it as an obligation which has got to be met.
    Mr. T. HENDERSON: When was it this alleged looting took place at Petrograd?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I think as far back as 1918. There has been considerable delay, because of the difficulty of getting the proper evidence.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: It is very difficult for anyone who has not been in the East to understand the East at all. The hon. Gentleman opposite has had the advantage of having been there, and the hon. Member sitting behind him has an intimate knowledge. Such speeches are more interesting than the usual speeches we get from those benches. From my slight knowledge of the East—and I have passed some years of my life there—I think the Eastern peoples are very much like children. They are children of about the age of 14, and, so long as signs of authority are there, so long as the schoolmasters, prefects and older boys are about, these children behave themselves. They are not bad by nature, but immediately they are left without evidences of authority, they break loose, and, like all children, they are cruel. Children are cruel in most cases without knowledge that they are cruel, and if we excite a child of that age, that is to say, the grown man of the East, there is no brutality which he will not commit. The way, therefore, to keep him in order is not by too large a show of force, but sufficient force to let him know that the individual who is travelling must be respected.
    I was very much interested to hear an hon. Member speak on the question of the Armenians. We are all interested in Armenia and in the sufferings of the Armenians. The right hon. Gentleman called them Christians. I would rather call them people professing the Christian religion. There is a vast difference between the two. [An HON. MEMBER: "It
    172
    is not confined to the East!"] It is not confined to the East. In my journey through life, which has already been long, I have not met many whom I could call Christians, although, of course, I have met a good many who profess it.
    Mr. MAXTON: You are on the wrong side of the House!
    Sir B. FALLE: I do not think the side of the House makes much difference. There are Pharisees, but I am quite sure the hon. Gentlemen who interrupt me are not Pharisees; they only want a bit of fun. They are like the people of the East of whom I was speaking. They want a show of authority to keep them in order. The Armenians, as we all know, have been there for a good many hundreds of years. The Turks came and conquered, and took their land from them. The Turk does not pretend to be other than an uncivilised person. He is not too proud to fight, and is ready to fight anybody. He is a very excellent fighter, and he has some of the advantages, and all the disadvantages, of his religion. He does not drink—even as moderately as I do myself. He does not even smoke. He has one great advantage over a great many Christian people: he washes, and he does it daily! He washes with sand. I have tried sand, and I prefer water. He prays five times a day. Some of our Christians fast, but not like the Turk. He fasts from the sunrise to sunset, and if anyone has tried that, even in this climate, he knows what is means, and what it will mean in that climate.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: On a point of Order. What has this to do with the subject of the discussion?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will keep to the question before us. He is going very wide of the mark.
    Sir B. FALLE: The question is that of Armenia—that is what I was speaking about. Reference has been made to the Turk and the women and children he has massacred.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman opposite to suggest that fasting and praying has anything to do with the massacres in Armenia?
    Sir B. FALLE: That is not a point of Order. It is only a waste of time. The

    173
    Under-Secretary referred to Smyrna. Perhaps he will allow me to say that in that case the Turks were driven back, and the Armenians were behind them. When the: Turk recovered his strength, and it must be considered he is a more or less barbarous individual, he visited it upon those people whom he looked upon as his subjects. I am not here to defend the Turk in the massacres he has perpetrated. But if he had wanted to massacre the Armenians he has had 500 years in which to do it, and he has not succeeded yet. The hon. Member who has now gone out to dinner referred to the refund of expenses incurred on behalf of the British prisoners of war in Belgium by the United States Minister—£8,800. I think that we ought to pay that money without the smallest hesitation, and we should couple with that our thanks to the United States Minister at Brussels, who, I have no doubt, judiciously and wisely spent the money on behalf of the British prisoners of war.
    There is another item. I do not quite follow what is meant by K7 wireless messages sent on behalf of the Armenian Government. It sounds rather humourous. I suppose it was put in by the late Government. If they ever expect to receive any part of £2,660 then they are very great optimists. I should like to know something about that charge. Were these messages sent and the expense incurred at the request of His Majesty's Government, the Government in London, or the representative of the Government abroad? There was no mention by the hon. Gentleman of the number of telegrams sent.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Or the number of words!
    Sir B. FALLE: Not even the number of words. I should like also to know on what subject these telegrams were sent, and to whom they were sent?
    Mr. BECKER: There are several items I should like a further explanation about. Item K3 deals with the transport and relief of refugees from Asia Minor and Thrace, and refers to the balance of expenditure in respect of the chartering of vessels for the transport of refugees from Asia Minor and Thrace consequent upon the Greek evacuation of those districts in September, 1922. It is a re-vote of
    174
    £18,000. May I ask the hon. Gentleman in his reply whether they were Greek steamers that were chartered, and also how much money was paid for the charter of these ships? Is this £18,000 the last amount which we shall have to pay? Or is it a round figure, just an instalment, and shall we have further claims from Greece? The second part of the item deals with the maintenance (mainly in refugee camps in Malta) and transport expenses of British subjects left without resources owing to the destruction of Smyrna, and their inability to return thither, including the refunding expenditure incurred by the Malta Government—£40,000. Is this, as I said in respect of the £18,000, an instalment? Does it mean that it is simply to pay debts which are due; to pay money which must be paid? Or is this the final and absolute finish? It is not fair to a heavily-taxed people, as we are to-day, struggling under heavy burdens which we find it difficult to carry, to keep on bringing up these various amounts. Hon. Members opposite perhaps think that £40,000 and £18,000 is a little money. Personally I think it is a lot of money. We have got so accustomed to the recent times to talk in millions that to talk about £40,000 makes hon. Members laugh. I think it is a very serious matter.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Your Government got into it.
    Mr. BECKER: There is another figure of £10,000, Item K4—provision for the refund to the Admiralty of expenditure on foodstuffs and medical stores placed at the disposal of the Japanese authorities for the relief of native sufferers from the earthquake of 1st September, 1923. We must always remember the terrible disaster in Japan, and remember what we read in the papers of the gallant attempts of our naval men who happened to be there to relieve the suffering of the unfortunate Japanese people. But I have an idea that there may be more behind. £10,000 does not seem a great deal for stores. Tokio is a big place with millions of people in it. The Navy rushed up to the rescue, and goods, stores, blankets, clothes were given to the people. What they gave was doubtless a tribute by the British Navy to the naval powers of the Pacific. But is that all we can do? Is that all we did? I make bold to say that we could do—perhaps did do—infinitely

    175
    more, and this little matter is to keep the books right!
    There is another curious thing in reference to the damage to the furniture of the diplomatic and consular offices in Tokio and Yokohama, which is put down at £10,000, and it is that the value of the supplies and goods which the Navy placed at the disposal of the Japanese authorities after the earthquake is put down at exactly £10,000. I would like to know if they sold the tables and chairs to buy these things for the inhabitants of Tokio and Yokohama. I cannot believe that £10,000 is going to pay for all the furniture and effects which were lost by these officers in those two places, because there is hardly a house left standing now in Tokio and Yokohama. Japan is a jumping-off place for our trade with China, and I would like to know if we only had £10,000 worth of furniture and effects there. I think all this tends to show that these Estimates are put down in round figures, and the Government are practically saying to us, "£10,000 is nothing, we do not mind.'
    That amount cannot be exactly the value of all that furniture, and I would like to know whether the Government looked into this question of damage, or is this £10,000 simply an instalment? I have an idea that this is only an instalment, and that further sums will be asked for. Then there is an item of £2,660 for wireless messages sent on behalf of the Armenian Government, and it says:
    "The claim has been noted for presentation to any future stable Government of Armenia."
    Now I think that is very uncharitable. I have listened to Socialist orators foaming at the mouth, and declaring that when they get into power they will not penalise any small people, and here, almost before the child is born, you are piling up against him a debt of this vast amount. This is a vast empire of which we are all proud, and are we going to stoop so low in the case of a new Government of this kind, smarting to govern a country under adverse conditions with no money to spend, as to come down upon them with our aeroplanes and tanks and demand this £2,660 before we shall allow them to proceed to govern Armenia? Is that playing the game? I should like to see an open-hearted, open-handed and
    176
    honest Government dealing with this question. I should think that the sentence I have just read might very well be struck out and the matter referred to the League of Nations.
    Then there is another item of £21,000 for losses at Petrograd, the explanation being:
    "Provision for meeting further claims by persons who have proved that they deposited roubles with the British authorities in Petrograd during the period for which no accounts are available."
    This is a most difficult thing to understand, and I cannot tell what it all means. Does it mean that if I can prove that I have deposited roubles with British authorities at Petrograd the Government will come forward and pay me an equivalent in pounds? At what rate of exchange will they pay? In case it happened to be 1,000,000 roubles, would the Government pay the rate of exchange of 1914 or the rate which is prevailing to-day? I do not know what the exchange value of roubles are to-day, but I should say that £21,000 would buy all the roubles in Russia. What does all this mean? You are simply giving a preference to the man who can prove that he has deposited roubles with the British authorities in Petrograd.
    I do not know whether this proposal is connected with the settlement between this country and Russia which we are to expect shortly. Does it mean that you are going to pay back at the rate of exchange which prevailed when these people invested their roubles? I should like an answer to that question because it may very much concern hon. Members opposite when they go to Moscow, for they will have to get roubles in order to proceed there. I make bold to say that if you take the present exchange value of £21,000 worth of roubles there never was that number left with the British authorities in Petrograd. The Labour Government, which talks so much of what they are going to do with capital, are now sanctioning a payment of money which is very unfair to the taxpayer. Under the heading "OO" we have appropriations-in-aid for
    "repayment by the Malta Government of expenditure by the British Government on the relief of Maltese during the War. The amount repayable will be deducted from the sum payable to the Malta Government under sub-head K3."
    This is very difficult to understand. The Maltese Government is apparently going

    177
    to pay back money which they owe to us and yet we are charging ourselves £10,500 for it.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: That is to make the Maltese cross.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Does this come under "00" heading?
    Mr. BECKER: I will do my best to keep in order. Obviously, this is put in in order to deceive us; otherwise, how do they make out that it comes to exactly £10,500? Would it not be more likely to come to some odd sum? Is this going to be the last of these things, or is the Maltese Government going to continue giving us money while we are charging ourselves with it? And where does this money go to?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is double entry.
    Mr. BECKER: I do not know what kind of book-keeping it is, but the only really efficient Government book-keeping seems to me to be that of the people who collect the Income Tax. I am not so sure whether they are so accurate when they are paying money out.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Maltese are on the cross?
    Mr. BECKER: No, but here we are voting money done up in little parcels, and I think, on an occasion like this, we have a right to point out that certain of these things cannot be correct, because they come to exactly even figures. They must either be part payments or bits on the way. This is not a conclusive Estimate. Can we never end this war of payments?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: We are paying on the instalment system.
    Mr. BECKER: Is that necessary? We have the Capital Levy to come yet. What are you going to do with it if you have all these things to pay off when you get it? You will not be able to bring about a new heaven upon earth when you are giving money to all these funny little places.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: That is not said with deliberation.
    Mr. BECKER: With regard to Subhead LL—Refund to Indian Revenues
    178
    in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Services in China, Persia, Arabia and Siam—I do not know whether I should be in order, on this Subhead, in raising the question of the cost of diplomatic services all over the world, or whether I must confine my observations to the four countries mentioned?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member certainly cannot go all over the world.
    Mr. BECKER: This is what it says:
    "In the original Estimate provision was made in the sum of £32,500 for payment to the Government of India in respect of expenditure on Indian troops employed as Consular Guards in Persia, which expenditure is shared equally by the British and Indian Governments. The payment required is now estimated at £150,000 for the period from Julv, 1920, to 31st March, 1923, and £75,000 in respect of the year 1923–24."
    Does that mean that we are to go on at this rate in the future, ad infinitum, doling out the taxpayers' money on these arid deserts? Is that necessary when we have such things as aeroplanes? What do these troops do in Persia? We might be informed why they are there. We have got beyond the militarist stage now, when we used to have sentries standing in front of black and white boxes.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not travel so wide. This is not a new service, and he must restrict himself to the increased expenditure shown on the Vote.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. BECKER: I was asking why it is necessary to have Indian troops at all in Persia. I think there should be no Indian troops in Persia, and that the whole Vote is a gross extravagance and purely throwing money away. I imagine that these Indian troops that are in Persia are doing their duty as troops, and troops usually find themselves on sentry. No doubt, they are on guard outside consular offices in Persia, but are they there for the purpose of looking—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss whether the troops should be there. He can only discuss the increased expenditure—not the original policy.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: On a point of Order. Is it not the fact that the original

    179
    Estimate was only for £32,000, while this Supplementary Estimate is for £192,500, and in the case of so large a discrepancy is not the Committee at liberty to range over the whole subject?
    Mr. THOMAS: On that point of Order. One can appreciate the very careful scrutiny of the Vote, and I only want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that under the general flippancy of the hon. Member's remarks one or two things have been said about the Indian guards; and, as hon. Members on the other side of the Committee know perfectly well, while this matter may be treated with levity here, there may be considerable misapprehension if what is said is read in other places. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will recollect that under the levity of the situation there are serious possibilities.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Has it not frequently been held that, when a revised Estimate is greatly in excess of the original Estimate, it can be discussed and treated as a new service?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is purely a matter of degree. When there is a considerable discrepancy more latitude is allowed than when the discrepancy is a small one.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Is it not the fact that this Estimate is for five times the amount of the original Estimate, and, that being the case, is not the whole subject open to discussion?
    Mr. BECKER: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am in any way being flippant about these guards. I have no intention of being flippant. I quite realise that people's lives in the whole area may be dependent upon them, but I wish to find out how it is that the expenditure is so enormously increased that it is five times the original amount. I presume that means that there are five times as many soldiers as there were when the original Estimate was made, and I think I am entitled to ask why there are so many more. Have they really work to do, or are they there simply to overawe the natives? The number of soldiers must now be very large, because the original Estimate was for £32,500. I should like to know how many there are, how many officers there are, and how many non-commissioned officers
    180
    and rank and file. Do the rank and file outnumber the officers or do the officers outnumber the rank and file? Is the increase in expenditure due to better pay and conditions for the troops? Is it due to giving them more rations? Are they getting more ammunition? Is it that they are getting new uniforms? Are they providing bands or buying new rifles? Are they having artillery supplied to them? What is the reason for this tremendous expenditure? It cannot be explained away by saying that when the original Estimate was made no one had any idea that these men were going to become so expensive. Military units can estimate very closely what their expenditure is going to be and what their rations and their uniforms will cost, what is the wear and tear of their clothes and what their puttees and their trousers will cost, and their rifles and bayonets and entrenching tools. You can estimate quite safely what a given number of men are going to cost. When we find there is five times more money than was expected, can it mean that these men have been wiped out by some dread disease or that they have been treacherously attacked and have had to be replaced at a tremendous cost? It is £102,000. You could run a very nice strike on £192,000. Are there more troops there than when the original Estimate was made? If not, where has the money gone? If they are there, why are they there? Is it necessary to have so many there? What has happened in the meantime to make it necessary to increase the number of troops by five times? We know that when a military force is in a particular place, a few men may attract a horde of Persians or some wild tribes may come to attack the consular offices because there is a force, and it is natural when you see force to go and I smash it. We are keeping Indian troops in Persia and agitating the native mind, and as the years go by we find it necessary to spend more money on the business, so I presume we have to have more troops, and more troops will encourage more resistance; and if the expenditure keeps progressively rising it is safe to assume that the danger to the consular office is getting greater through attracting more enemies.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Do I understand the hon. Member is addressing us on the policy of general disarmament?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must really keep to the subject matter of the Vote. He is travelling far too wide.
    Mr. BECKER: I am trying very hard because the troops in Persia, which were estimated to cost £32,000, have cost £150,000. Have we more troops in Persia? Are they all Indian troops or is it because there are white officers attached to them that the expenditure has gone up?
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is there not a Standing Order against repetition?
    Mr. BECKER: If hon. Members raise points of order I have to go back again.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I should like to ask for information. Is this what they call Parliamentary procedure?
    Mr. BECKER: I am awfully sorry. I should like to ask this question. Are there more troops—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member keeps on repeating his argument, I shall have to ask him to discontinue his speech.
    Mr. BECKER: The next item is refund of balance of expenditure incurred on behalf of British prisoners of war in Turkey by the Netherlands Minister at Constantinople while in charge of British interests during the War. Why is that £1,000? Does it mean that he has sent in his expenditure account and says it is £1,000? Is no account kept? An ordinary business firm would give some idea of detail. Does he simply ask for £1,000 and we simply give him £1,000? Why is it a round figure like that? It suggests that he has had the biggest part of his expenses already paid and this is the balance. A balance is usually made of odd sums. It looks as if we do not think and simply give £1,000 to anyone who asks for it. "British prisoners of war in Belgium by the United States Minister at Constantinople." That is a figure not quite so round. It looks as if something has been done to check expenses. Did they pay the United States Minister in Brussels in francs or was it paid in dollars or in sterling? It is £8,800. Is it owing to the exchange that it got to that figure, or is
    182
    it because we paid him in dollars and lost money? The £200 looks to me as if it is a question of exchange. I should like to ask that in all Estimates this Government will set an example to previous Governments and have an absolutely new way of doing things. They should cut out Supplementary Estimates altogether. A Department ought to be able to say what it wants without having to keep coming to the House of Commons. I hope you will ration the Departments—give them so much money and that is all they are going to have. Surely the Estimates cannot be debated too long. We want to know what you are doing with other people's money. When we pay our taxes, as many of us do, we like to feel it is really going to do something which is going to help the other man. We want to help the country, to help the Empire and to help the under dog. We do not like to feel that our money is being frittered away in these sort of messages from Armenia, and in paying the expenses of other nationalities. The expenditure requires careful scrutiny. I think it is very unfair to blame everything on the last Government. If it is the only excuse that the present Government have for all their failings and faults to blame the last Government, let them say that for the future there shall be a different sort of Estimate, and that these round sums shall not everlastingly be served up. Let us get figures which will show to any ordinary man that care is being taken, and that the country's money is being looked after.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish you comfort and success, Mr. Entwistle, in the Chair that has been worn hollow by my own anatomy, and I desire to assure you that in any slight embarrassment you may experience, even in this docile Parliament, you will find in me a most sympathetic critic. I want to put three questions to the Government. The first question is in relation to the item "OO," which is accounted for by the Foreign Office. This is a refund by the Malta Government of expenditure by the British Government. Presumably, the channel of communication between the British Government and the Malta Government is the Colonial Office, and I want to ask the Colonial Secretary if he is satisfied that this is a proper and sufficient refund of the liabilities which the Malta Government

    183
    have incurred owing to the aid given by the British Government to their own lawful subjects. With regard to the item K8, losses in Petrograd, I want to reinforce the point made by one of my hon. Friends as to the £21,000. Is this £21,000 calculated on the pre-War value of the rouble, or on the value of the rouble at the time of deposit, or on some average? It makes a very great difference to those persons who are affected. I suggest that the proper course was to calculate it on the value of the rouble at the time that it was deposited. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs can reply on that point. I should also like to ask him a question in regard to the wireless messages sent on behalf of the Armenian Government. It is stated that, "this claim has been noted for presentation to any future stable Government of Armenia." May I take it that when a de facto Government takes possession, it is responsible for the acts of the previous Government? I take it that that is the principle on which His Majesty's Government are acting with regard to Russia, and that the Russian Government is prima facie responsible for the debts of the Czarist Government. I take it that the Turkish Government is now de facto in possession of Armenia. If that be so, is not the Turkish Government responsible for the £2,660? Is there anything in the Agreement concluded last year to debar our enforcing this claim upon the Turkish Government for this assumes that the Turkish Government is recognised as the de facto Government having authority in Armenia? I would ask the Under-Secretary whether that is so, whether the Foreign Office does recognise the Turkish Government as the de facto Government of Armenia, and whether they recognise that by virtue of any recent convention or by virtue of the facts of the case?
    Mr. THOMAS: With respect to the question put by the right hon. Member regarding the Malta item, I would point out that when Smyrna was captured by the Turks it was necessary to evacuate a number of these unfortunate people, who were sent to Malta. We could not expect the Malta people to be responsible for them. The result has been that from that day to this we have looked after these people. Unfortunately, the state of
    184
    employment there prevented large numbers of them getting employment, and we still hold ourselves responsible for them. At the present time, negotiations are taking place with the Turkish Government with the object of getting these people back to their original homes in Smyrna. In the absence of that taking place, and pending some other arrangement, we are responsible. That is the object of the Estimate, and the reason why it comes under this Vote is because the Foreign Office is responsible for the Smyrna situation and the Colonial Office for the administration in Malta.
    Mr. HOPE: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the Malta Government has fully discharged its obligations in this matter?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is only fair to say that they have no obligations. Do not let us be under any misapprehension. We are responsible. If I were to attempt to hold the Malta Government responsible it would cause endless confusion. I do not hold the Malta Government responsible for anything. We are absolutely responsible, and in this Estimate we are discharging our responsibility.
    Mr. HOPE: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that this is not a Vote, but an Appropriation-in-Aid, a payment from the Malta Government? Therefore, the Malta Government have acknowledged responsibility. What I ask is, whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that they have fully discharged their responsibility.
    Mr. THOMAS: In that sense, yes.
    Mr. PONSONBY: With regard to Armenia, I do not think I can enter into such a complicated question as that raised by the right hon. Gentleman. It would not be correct to say that Armenia is entirely under the Turkish Government. There is no doubt that part of Armenia comes under the Soviet Russian Government. The sum involved is of a perfectly simple character and was incurred by the Government of Armenia, as I have explained, when they could not communicate with their people in Paris. We decided to lend them facilities for wireless messages. On the other point, with regard to losses on roubles in Petrograd, the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the rate of exchange was at the date when the deposit was made.

    185
    Delay in the payment of these claims was partly due to the late date on which they were presented.
    Sir F. WISE: What date was that?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I cannot tell exactly when they were presented.
    Sir F. WISE: That makes all the difference to the exchange.
    Mr. PONSONBY: There was also a difficulty in obtaining satisfactory data as to when the money was deposited in the Embassy.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    COLONIAL SERVICES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,600,504, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for sundry Colonial Services, including a Grant-in-Aid of Railway Expenditure in Kenya and Uganda and certain other Grants-in-Aid."
    Sir SYDNEY HENN: I propose a reduction of £100 in this Vote for the purpose of making some observations, a few criticisms perhaps, and for asking some explanation. On my part there is no opposition to the voting of this money. On the contrary, I am very pleased indeed to see that one of the first acts of this Government is to carry on the policy for the development of the Colonies initiated by the late Government. I have some misgiving on the following points. I should like to have the assurance that this money will really be spent on the railways that are indicated in the schedule. I would remind the Committee that only last month a question put by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. A. Somerville) was answered by the spokesman of the Colonial Office giving a programme of the work outlined by the Government for the development of East Africa. I refer to this matter in order to draw a comparison between what was said then and what is now contained in the schedule for this Supplementary Estimate. Four separate items are mentioned as including a whole programme of work to be carried out.
    The first item includes certain railways connected with the development of cotton growing in Kenya and Uganda, and undoubtedly these are the railways referred
    186
    to in the schedule. In addition to these, three branch railways are mentioned in Kenya, the betterment of the existing Uganda railway, and also certain public utility services, which were left, over when the Kenya loan of £5,000,000 was issued, with the intention that they should be met out of the proceeds of a further loan. I bring up this point because when the Kenya loan was issued it was also stated that this loan was raised to meet the cost of railway, harbour and other works for the general development of the colony. It was expressly stipulated that the loan carried no guarantee of the British Government, which I think rather strange considering we are dealing with a Crown Colony. One of the questions I should like to ask is: what would happen if Kenya defaulted on this loan? Certainly the public appears to think it carries the implied guarantee of the British Government, because even to-day that loan is standing at about 110. I should like to point out that, according to the latest printed statement of the Colonial Treasurer in Kenya, the £5,000,000 was appropriated not wholly for the purpose of paying for the railway and harbour works, at Kilindini and the loan which was to be repaid to the Treasury, but also £600,000 in the repayment to revenue of advances from revenue for military expenditure in connection with the war, and for the purchase of reserve stores for railway and steamer services. It does not seem to me that this is anything but a method of saying that a portion of the loan is devoted to paying old debts which were really not included in the original prospectus for the Kenya Loan. What I want to know is, whether we can depend upon this £3,500,000, if it is voted by this Committee, being devoted precisely to the railways that are mentioned in the Schedule?
    Another matter to which I should like to call attention is the special responsibility of the Colony of Kenya for this particular loan. The schedule says that the loan is to cover the construction of railways in Kenya and Uganda. My information leads me to believe that the Vote would be sufficient for those purposes, but what I wish to know is this, is it the intention of the Government to saddle Kenya with the responsibility of railways in Uganda? It is a matter of

    187
    public knowledge that for many years the Uganda Railway budget was included in the general budget of the Colony of Kenya and for many years when there was a surplus in the working of the line that surplus was appropriated by Kenya for its general revenue. That, of course, raised protests from Uganda whenever there was a Surplus. During the last two years, I am very glad to say that a more business-like and sensible arrangement has been adopted, that of keeping completely apart the railway budget from the budget of the Colony. But in any case the question still remains, why is the loan going to be made to the Colony of Kenya and utilised for construction in Uganda?
    There is a further question in connection with this matter which is still more important, that is the question of the ownership and control of these railways. Hon. Members will remember, of course, the story of the Ronaldshay Report. It was obtained in consequence of various discussions which took place in this House with regard to the merits of private enterprise. It is quite true that in countries like this for the time being the railroads must be provided by the State, even if they are constructed by private enterprise. Let me point out some of the difficulties. Supposing the Uganda Railway, which is at present under the control of the Kenya Government, was asked to extend into Tanganyika territory. If it was a private railway or a group of railways we all know there is no difficulty whatever in building railways crossing international boundaries and managing them in such a way that the interests of the shareholders do not suffer and that the interests of the people in each separate country do not suffer. Supposing, as seems to be intended in this arrangement, that these railways which now should be rapidly developed, and quite rightly so, in East Africa, are to be left under the control of one single colony—say Kenya for the sake of arguments—will Kenya, under these conditions, take an interest in the railway development of Tanganyika and Uganda? I do not think so. Why should they? Look at it from another point of view. Would it be fair to saddle for any length of time the finances of a colony like Kenya with the cost of construction of unprofitable railways in Tanganyika or other adjoining colonies? Quite clearly, no. Would
    188
    Tanganyika and Uganda pay the loss if the railway remained under the complete control of Kenya? I do not think that they would. As a matter of fact, I can quote a very illuminating passage from a speech made on 16th November of last year in the Uganda Legislative Council.
    "The Chief Secretary reported a resolution of the Uganda Railway Council against making the payment of interest and sinkng fund on the cost of making the railway a charge on the Uganda revenue unless the branch extended into Uganda."
    Clearly you cannot expect that Uganda or Tanganyika would be willing to meet the deficits or allow Kenya to spend money on railways which benefited one Colony and did not benefit them. Why should they? This is one of the difficulties which we are up against in this matter? May I remind the Committee of what took place last year with regard to the small branch line, the Voi-Taveta line, connecting the Uganda railway system with the Tanganyika railway system just over the boundary. It will be remembered that on the advice of his officers the Secretary of State proposed to lift that line, and it was only in consequence of the protest made from this House, and in another place, that, eventually, it was decided that the line should remain there. Instead of £350,000 or £450,000 estimated to be the cost of putting the line into working order, I am given to understand that the present railroad manager has put it into working order for £35,000, thus justifying what was said here. The real motives lying behind the Departmental recommendations to the Secretary of State in the matter ware inter-colonial jealousies. Clearly this must be so when you have two completely independent colonial administrations, Tanganyika and Kenya, and what suits one Colony does not suit the other.
    All this shows clearly that the time has arrived for dealing with these East African railways as a whole. I consider that a case has been made out for establishing the control of a single administration, if necessary with a council of professional railwaymen to help them, and, of course, with local councils in each Colony to look after the interests of agriculture and the general public interest of each of the Colonies. Under such a system there would be no difficulty at all in each Colony retaining the ownership of its own railway, because

    189
    separate accounts would be kept of the result in each of the different Colonies, and you would then have the two very great advantages that, in the case of a Colony which was paying its way, the Colony would not be sacrificed for the deficiencies that occurred in the working of the railway of its neighbours, while in the case of a Colony that could not meet its working expenses, or provide the necessary capital for the extension of the railroad system in that particular Colony, it would be possible for His Majesty's Government, through the Colonial Office, to help it directly on the merits of each separate case. I hope that these suggestions will be considered carefully, and opportunity given a little later on for the discussion of this and the general question of administration in East Africa.
    There is one matter which I wish, before sitting down, to bring particularly to the notice of this Committee. In the early part of last year questions were fired at the head of the late Government from every corner of the House as to the relative merits of private enterprise in the construction of tropical African railways versus construction by the administration. As a direct consequence of that Parliamentary agitation, a Committee, known as the Ronaldshay Committee, was set up. One of the principal objects of that Committee was to see what measures could be taken to encourage private enterprise in developing British dependencies in East and West Tropical Africa, with special reference to projected enterprises of transportation. That was in July. On the 17th October last year the Governor of Kenya in opening at Nairobi the Legislative Assembly said:
    "Hon. Members will be glad to hear that the Colonial Office has approved the principle that branch railways are to be constructed departmentally in future."
    The Ronaldshay Committee Report was laid on the Table last month, and that Committee, among other things, makes the following representation:
    "We have recommended that in every case where departmental construction is contemplated, unless definite and sufficient reasons against this course are shown by the Colonial Government, tenders for the work should be invited and prepared, and estimates made locally, and that departmental construction shall not be permitted if satisfactory tenders for the construction of the work at a lower cost are received, and that this test shall invariably be applied before departmental construction is sanctioned."
    190
    I wish to ask the Secretary for State how is it that the Government, at the instance of this House, appointed a Committee in July to consider and report upon this matter, and their representaive in Kenya in October stated that the Colonial Office had already decided in favour of departmental construction, and when the Report of the Committee comes out it turns out that they recommended that departmental construction shall be undertaken in no case without calling for tenders?
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The hon. Member who has just sat down—
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understood that my hon. Friend moved a reduction, and I would like to know how much it was, and whether it is to cover both items or only the first item?
    The CHAIRMAN: I did not understand that the hon. Member had moved a reduction.
    Sir S. HENN: I beg to move "That Item A.6—[Kenya (Grant-in-Aid), £3,500,000]—be reduced by £100."
    Mr. AMERY: This is an entirely new Motion, and the right hon. Gentleman should give us a statement of the general policy of the Government with regard to this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. BALFOUR: Is it not the practice of the Government in Committee, when a new subject is presented, to have a statement made by the responsible Minister, so that the Committee may have some idea of the general effect of what is proposed?
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: As I understand it, this question should have been raised before the interesting speech which we have just heard.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir S. Henn) has raised some very interesting points as to the future and cost of construction of rail ways between adjoining Protectorates. I wish to call attention to one or two other points, having in view what has recently happened in Kenya in the building of railways which are now to be increased in length and to have feeder railways added to them. This is part of a scheme for spending £8,000,000, which is to be

    191
    devoted to the building of railways for the development of Kenya, particularly in connection with cotton-growing. We are asked to vote the money now being considered, on the ground that it would develop cotton-growing in Kenya. I lay special stress on that, because I wish to ask the Minister particularly on what lines this money is to be spent. If we look at the scheme that is before us, we will see that the line which is called the Nakuru-Turbo line is to be prolonged to Uganda, probably to Lusinga, with branch lines in the Kavirondo country, which is typical cotton-growing country. There is also a proposed line to Kitale, which is not in a cotton-growing country, but in what might be called a white area. There is a proposed branch line to Solai, which is in a white area also, and to Nyeri, which is in a white area and not in cotton-growing country. For those three branch lines £1,000,000 is set aside.
    The Committee ought to know clearly whether the sum we are asked to vote to-night, or any part of it, is to go to those three branch lines, because we are being asked to devote a sum of money to the development of cotton growing in the Empire. I welcome railway development because I think that there is no more desirable way of opening up our undeveloped colonies than by the railway. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain very rightly said once, "The railway is the key to Africa." At the same time we are voting money, and we want to know on what objects that money is to be spent and that it is spent in the most economical way to give us the best returns.
    I wish next to call attention to the alignment of the railways and to ask by what authority the alignments of railways I are settled. Hon. Members may know that the geography of that part of Africa is somewhat peculiar. The main line known as the Uganda railway runs gradually up from Nairobi to the Kikuyu I escarpment. The line runs along the great Rift Valley, and then climbs over the escarpment of Mau to a height of 8,200 feet, and drops on the other side to the great lake. I want to call the attention of the Committee to the remarkable alignment of the Nakuru Turbo line. The idea of that line was to open up the plateau lying to the north of the Uganda railway. The line could have been
    192
    taken from the Uganda railway at the summit perfectly easily. In fact the line was taken off about 50 miles further back at Nakuru, on the floor of the Rift Valley, and a new line was built parallel with the old line at a distance of only something like 10 miles from the old line. It ran along for 55 miles parallel to the old line to a point near the Mau escarpment, which perfectly easily could have been reached from the old line at much less expense.
    I am told that an estimate was made by the Public Works Department in Kenya for a line from Mau to the point of which I speak. That estimate was £80,000. The line from Nakuru to that point cost, in fact, £780,000. I think that we are entitled to ask why the line was settled in that way, by whom it was settled, and why there has never been any explanation given or any inquiry allowed, though it has been asked for by responsible people in Kenya. We have only to look at the area through which that line has been taken to ask ourselves the question, what was the reason, if any reason there was, why that line should have been dealt with in that way? The public in Kenya have demanded that an inquiry should be held. No inquiry has been held. There the line is. Now we are asked to vote this large sum of money for extending that line. Before the Committee votes the money I think we should have an assurance that the alignment of that railway will be the most suitable for the purpose for which we are asked to spend the money, namely, the development of cotton-growing.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn referred also to the Ronaldshay Committee's findings. The cost of the line of which I have been speaking was, I believe, something like £14,000 a mile. The Ronaldshay Committee said that tenders should be called for locally and then compared with local estimates. With regard to that line, I wish to ask how the contract was entered into, what tender was called for and if it was compared with any local estimate. There is another point in connection with the extension of railways in Kenya to which I wish to refer. It was a standing disgrace to the old Uganda railway that very small attention was paid to the native traffic. It always struck me as being rather a curious thing, because the native traffic was the best paying traffic. Natives

    193
    were allowed to come from great distances to a station and there they had to stay sometimes for twelve hours, or perhaps twenty-four hours, in the open without shelter, without means of getting fire or water. When the train came in it was full and could not take them. If they got into a train they were packed like herrings in a barrel and had no conveniences or accommodation for very long journeys, and they were at times locked into the carriages and could not get out at the stations.
    On State-built railways such as this it should be one of the first objects before the State to see that all the passengers, of whatever race or colour, have sufficient accommodations and conveniences. I put in a word particularly for the native traffic, because the native is inarticulate, and unless someone speaks for him he is apt to sit down and put up with whatever is offered to him. The final point to which I would draw attention is that the interest which will have to be found for these railways, which may not all prove to be paying propositions or certainly may not pay for some years, will have to be found out of the taxation of the Colony. It should be borne in mind that the people who benefit; particularly by the railways should pay the cost. By that I mean, that in any future arrangement of the taxation of the inhabitants of that Colony great care should be taken to see that the charges for railways which mainly benefit European settlements should not be placed on the shoulders of the natives.
    Mr. MOREL: The few remarks which I propose to address to the Committee will be a substantial endorsement of the eloquent speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. This scheme is described as one which is principally for the development of cotton growing, and like the hon. Member, I should like to see that it was actually such a scheme. A scheme for the development of cotton-growing will not meet with opposition from any part of the Committee, but one would like to be assured as to whether, in fact, all the various branches of this railway scheme are going to be put to that use. My hon. Friend has just described, with perfect accuracy, the three branch railways which it is proposed to build, and he said, quite rightly, that of these three branch railways none fully taps the
    194
    cotton-growing country. The extension of the main railway does go through one of the big native reserves, the Kavirondo reserve, which is a cotton-growing area, and so far as that part of the scheme is concerned it is absolutely sound from that point of view.
    10.0 P.M.
    These branch railways, I submit, require very careful consideration before we pass the scheme. In so far as they profess to be branch railways for the development of cotton growing they profess to be what they are not, and it would be perfectly possible to build two or three branch railways in other parts of the Colony, which would serve the purpose for which this Vote suggests the present proposals are meant. I also endorse what my hon. Friend said about the necessity for examining this scheme with very great caution. I am sure I need not assume for one moment that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has not already made that discovery, and has found for himself that there is need for very great caution in examining any scheme for railways in Kenya, in view of the experience derived from the history of the first part of the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), in referring to the Uasin Gishu Railway, used language which was extremely mild. I will be plainer and describe it as an absolute scandal, and everybody connected with the Kenya Colony knows it was a scandal, and the colonists themselves last October invited a Commission of Inquiry, with the widest possible powers, to investigate the history of the railway. The last point on which I wish to touch is this. I hope we may have an assurance from my right hon. Friend, of a most explicit and thoroughgoing character, that the point of view kept in mind in building these railways will be the point of view embodied in the White Paper issued by the late Government, namely, that the first interest must be the interest of the native population. These railways may be used to serve the interests of the native population, and they may be used to serve the interests of the white population as against the native population. I do not think those interests are necessarily antagonistic, but one must confess that in Kenya they have often worked out in an antagonistic way,

    195
    whereas, in our great Dependencies in West Africa, where this country has shown an example to all European nations who are protecting States; where the best system of administration yet adopted in any part of Africa is flourishing, the whole theory and practice of government has been based on the principle that the major interest of the protecting State is the interest of the native population. The result has been to build up great native industries, to the benefit both of the natives and of the protecting State. I hope regard will be paid to the happy experience which we have had in West Africa and Uganda, and that an attempt will be made to foster cotton growing for the native population in the interests, not only of the native population, but of the Colony as a whole.
    Mr. THOMAS: This is an occasion on which a Minister could read an elaborate speech prepared by his Department, and the person outside would say, "What a wonderful knowledge of the subject he possesses," but I know perfectly well that, if I attempted to do so, it would not deceive anybody in this Committee, and I do not propose to attempt it. I am going to say, quite frankly, that dealing with a subject like this on taking charge of a Department like the Colonial Office, a Minister's first duty is to try to ascertain the facts, to make up his mind on them, and to endeavour to apply common sense to the problems presented to him. The question of Kenya was one of the first problems with which I had to deal. Apart entirely from the particular questions raised to-night and briefly touched upon by my hon. Friend who spoke, last and whose knowledge of the subject everyone appreciates, all I have to say on the broad general question is that without going into the merits of Europeans on Indians, I am convinced, from all I have read on the subject—and if the Committee will believe me, I have tried to make myself acquainted with it, and I have given it careful consideration—I have definitely come to the conclusion, and, indeed, I may say it is the policy of the Government, that apart from everything else, our first obligation in Kenya is our trust for the natives. That is the policy set out in the White Paper, and that is the policy we intend to pursue and carry out. But equally I wish to say that carries with it something more than is really stated in
    196
    the Paper. That carries with it not an obligation to talk about the franchise question or the immigration question. There is something far more fundamental than that, and it is that the trust for the native is first to insure that he is fairly treated, that he is protected, and, above all, that he is educated. In other words, I believe that, instead of following the past practice, I would like quite frankly to develop the ground of making him a peasant. It is impossible, as I say, to elaborate on this question, but in answer to my hon. Friend I would say that that is particularly the line I am going on.
    Let me come to the object of the Vote. In the last Government my predecessor in office, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, very carefully went into this scheme, the object of which was two-fold. First, all the evidence tends to show that cotton can be grown far more extensively than it has been in the past. It is a cotton that is peculiarly suitable to the Lancashire trade, grown by the natives. Keep that clearly in mind. No one can complain of a policy which says we are going to make the Empire as independent as we can. No one can blame our policy which says that, as Lancashire is dependent upon cotton and as we can grow the cotton within the Empire, it is our obvious advantage to do what we can in that way. That is the first broad general principle; but there was another factor. The problem of unemployment at home is very serious, and I have always felt that it is much easier to find work for the unskilled than for the skilled men. Those of us who have studied the problem of our unemployed at home are alarmed and distressed at the difficulties of finding work for the skilled men. Therefore, we have this principle, first of developing cotton, increasing the supply, making us independent, and speeding up the work by immediately ordering materials at home and so finding work we otherwise could not have. The result is that this money that we are asking the Committee to vote to-night is, first, for the development of cotton growing and, secondly, because the building of these railways means immediate orders at home. Let it be quite clear that the conditions are that the materials are to be ordered in this country. I do not say anything about the scandals of the original railways, but I do know

    197
    there is jealousy between contractors. I have read enough documents to convince me of that, and I cannot make up my mind which is right and which is wrong, because each one seems to state a decent case against the other. The most I can hope for is that, whatever may have been the difficulties in the past, it is my duty, as far as one can do it, to see that this money is wisely and judiciously spent in the future. With regard to the particular railways which were mentioned in those unpronounceable names by my hon. Friend (Sir R. Hamilton) in describing them to the Committee, I can only bring a practical mind to bear. I can tell where a junction is necessary by looking at a map. I can easily tell where there is a bottle-neck. [Laughter.] I mean outside the precincts of this House. Looking carefully at the map, and trying to follow where transport is necessary for the development of the transport of the cotton, one comes to the conclusion immediately that the routes chosen were, after all, the best. Taking the map as presented, and showing exactly the divergent traffic, I could see that from my railway experience, and I came to the conclusion that no criticism could be made on that score. What I am doing is applying the common-sense view to the problem. I ask the Committee to vote for this sum on the particular general principles I have laid down. I can assure my hon. Friend that the native question will never be lost sight of by me, and I can assure the Committee that, so far as the spending of the money economically and efficiently is concerned, I will do my best to see that that is done.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state specifically on what railway this money is to be expended?
    Mr. THOMAS: I cannot say what is the exact railway.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am particularly interested in this subject, as for six months last year I was working on this particular scheme which the present Government has taken over from the late Government. May I, at the outset, say how glad I was to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the general policy which he intends to pursue with regard, at any rate, to Africa, particularly East Africa, and his determination
    198
    to pursue an African policy? He will have a great deal of pressure from outside attempting to force upon him an Indianising policy, and I am glad he has nailed his colours to the mast in favour of an African policy. I agree that the one thing that is wanted in Kenya is less talk and less news about India, and more about the growing of cotton and maize by African natives on their own land and the development of the native resources and the general development of the country on African lines. Early last year, at the Colonial Office, we had certain definite commitments which had been entered into some time past with the Government of Kenya. There was a commitment with regard to Kilindini Harbour, the reconstruction and relaying of part of the Mid-Uganda Railway, and the construction of the Voi-Taveta branch. The only non-railway scheme in any way connected with this Vote was a sum, I think, of £60,000 which Kenya had to raise to lend to the Nairobi Municipality for improvements.
    The idea was that Kenya would, early this year, raise, without coming to this House, on its own credit and its own responsibility, £3,000,000 for that work. On the top of that came this proposal, put up in the main by the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, and partly put up by the Unemployment Committee of the late Cabinet, for the purpose of securing orders for railway materials for shops in this country, and so to relieve unemployment, that something more should be done in East Africa for the opening up of the country by means of railway development. Consequently, we were faced with a considerable capital expenditure by Kenya in Kenya, and then we had to put, on top of it, demands for very considerable further expenditure, not only in Kenya, but also in Uganda, about £2,000,000 actually more in Uganda, and consequentially more money to be spent by Kenya. I say consequentially for this reason, that if you increase, as we hope to increase, by the expenditure of this Vote, the annual production of Uganda from 100,000 to 500,000 bales of cotton, you will have a bottle-neck in Kenya, on the main Uganda Railway from Nairobi down to the coast, and also a further bottle-neck at Kilindini, which will necessitate considerably increased expenditure on the harbour works at

    199
    Kilindini. So the moment I had to examine the question of a further extension of the railway up in Uganda, with a view to getting considerably increased production in Uganda, that meant consequentially increased expenditure in Kenya.
    The late Secretary of State told his colleagues in the Cabinet that to place the whole six, seven or eight millions of the expenditure on Kenya and Uganda, already fairly highly taxed, expenditure which could not be remunerative for five years, without any assistance from the British Exchequer for the first five years, would be impossible and not justifiable. He persuaded the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if Kenya would raise the balance, and Kenya and Uganda jointly would after five years begin to repay, with interest, £3,500,000 advanced now by the Imperial Exchequer, Imperial assistance should be given to this very important railway development in Africa. I only hope, may I say, that this is a precedent, and a useful precedent, which the right hon. Gentleman, while he is at the Colonial Office, will be able to apply in other Colonies and Protectorates; and let me particularly commend to his attention Nyasaland. There to-day is an enormous scope for further railway development, but you cannot put the enormous initial expenditure, by way of; interest and sinking fund, on to poor? Colonies which are only just paying their way or, in some cases, are not paying their way, until those railways become remunerative.
    It is an extremely good form of loan in the interests of the British taxpayer in the long run, and in the interests of British trade and of employment in this country, now to advance sufficient sums of money to enable the adequate development of these African territories to take place Transportation is the secret of it. Every year we are losing in the adjoining colony of Tanganyika. The railway does not pay now. We are making up by grants-in-aid deficits which we shall never see back. If the right hon. Gentleman could only bring forward a Vote like this for 3½ or, say, 5 millions for Tanganyika, I believe that annual deficit would soon be wiped out, and you would get a development which would enable that colony to pay its way. With regard
    200
    to the particular railways to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), who knows the country well, referred, let me take first the Thika-Nyeri Railway. He says that is a white settlers' railway. It is in part of the territories that that railway is of enormous value in developing the Great Kikuya reserve. It goes through portions of that reserve, and will enable the native productions there to be brought straight on to the Uganda Railway very much cheaper than is the case to-day.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: I did not wish to say it did not go through the native area, because it does.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I want to point out that the whole of these branch lines have been carefully considered, not merely, as I think the hon. Member rather implied in his speech, from the point of the view of the white settler, but also from the point of view of the economic development of the native growing his own produce on his own soil, because I do believe that there has been a tremendous change of public opinion in Kenya, in the last few years, on that particular point, and I know how sensitive public opinion is, if it is suggested in any way in this House that there is not a very strong movement on the part of many of the white settlers themselves in favour, and in support, of a policy of joint production. I would point, as an example, to the way in which the specially cheap rates on this railway for native produced maize have been welcomed, and what a tremendous advantage it has been to the trade of Kenya and Uganda. I think it is most desirable that we should encourage every sign we see in Kenya of welcoming the native as a primary producer, and not merely as a wage-earner. I agree that the most important part of this Vote is the expenditure on the new line actually in Uganda. Hitherto the so-called Uganda Railway has hardly been in Uganda at all. It has just gone to the Lake, and it has had, as part of the system, an extremely efficient marine transport service on that Lake, which has collected the produce of Uganda, but this line will go for the first time through the eastern provinces of Uganda, a very important first link in potentially the richest part of Uganda for cotton-growing. That leads to the construction of the further extensions to

    201
    this particular line in a northerly direction from, and parallel with, the line which goes northward out from Uganda. Personally, I believe that the expenditure before this House to-night, coupled with a corollary of the loan which Kenya has to raise for the rest of the line, marks a tremendous step in advance in the development of the place. It is really a big advance this time. By it we may change the whole political and economic character of East Africa, and give such a support and such an impetus to progress of all kinds that will mean a very important new market open to this country and a new and very important area of production.
    I believe that the construction that we now are asked to authorise will put Uganda and Kenya in absolutely a solvent position, provided the Treasury does not make what I call absurd calls on Kenya and Uganda to pay for the cost of the Great War, which they have been endeavouring to do, and which has done more to throttle development, more harm and discouragement to enterprise of all kinds than anything else. If that can be guarded against, I believe we are doing a great thing for Africa and a great thing for the British Colonies which have been the subject of most regrettable controversy in the past. The less said in this regard in the future the better. These have been decided by the Governor and his extremely efficient railway staff and railway manager, by the Colonial Office, and by the Empire Cotton Growing Association whose recommendations in regard to the alignment has been taken. This decision has been taken without consideration of private interests whatsoever, without any consideration of whose property is going to be developed or whose is not going to be developed. The less we talk about the past the better, and the sooner we get to the extremely important matter of future Imperial development the better.
    In regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about construction, well, I really do not think it matters very much from what I have seen whether these things are constructive departmentally or by contract. It is merely a question as to the staff you have got, and what contractor you can get. If you have a contractor you have to impose special conditions in regard to labour and all that sort of thing
    202
    which makes it more difficult for him. Similarly, if you have departmental construction, you have greater difficulties in estimating, and so on. My own view is that by a judicious mixture of the two you get what is the best thing. I am extremely glad that the Vasin-Gishu railway has been successfully completed to Eldoret, and I believe that a substantial saving will be effected, which is very creditable to the contractor. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that this work might be done, some of if by contract and some by departmental construction. We have yet a great deal to learn by experiment even, much more evidence is required before final judgment can be given. May I in conclusion say how very glad I am that the present Government have seen their way to continue this Supplementary Estimate—one of the last things in a long piece of work, the last item, that I and my Noble Friend, the then Secretary of State, had got through before we left office. I am very glad to know that my right hon. Friend and his party have co-operated in this splendid work of developing the British Tropical Empire.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I have listened with great interest to the speech which has just been delivered by the late Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and I appreciate particularly the spirit of his opening remarks. I feel sure also that the Members of the Committee will join in expressing their appreciation of the pronouncement on this subject which has been made by the Colonial Secretary. This is not a party matter. The late Government put forward a White Paper in the summer of last year, and that denotes the high water mark of expression of the duty of this country towards the natives in our Crown Colonies. For this reason I am very glad that the present Colonial Secretary makes it his first consideration to see that the interests of the native population are duly considered.
    We have had this evening a very impressive speech from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), and the facts which he brought forward are sufficient to make us wish to press the right hon. Gentleman to go further into the very serious difficulties that are certainly felt to exist with regard to the railways. I am sure we have been quite convinced

    203
    of the desirability of the general plan, and I do not for a moment suspect that anyone in the Colonial Office is not convinced that it is the best thing. I am quite sure there is a good deal of doubt, not only in this country, but in Kenya itself, and it is highly desirable that that doubt should be allayed. We want to have no suspicion that a line is being made, not for cotton growing, but in order to pass through great estates owned by the most influential people in the Colony. It should not be suspected that that is the motive, and an authoritative inquiry would be the best way of setting aside any harmful suspicion of that kind.
    I want to ask the Colonial Secretary for an assurance, with regard to the native labour employed in the making of these railways. We are voting a loan to the Kenya Colony which will have to be repaid by that Colony, and that means that most of it will be paid by the natives in the long run. Therefore it is enormously important that these railways should be run primarily in the interests of the natives though also in the interests of the settlers. In their construction regard should be had to maintaining the highest British standard with regard to the treatment of natives.
    I regret to have to mention to the Committee a fact that is very well known to many hon. Members, that we have had in the Kenya Colony in the past a deplorable falling away from the honourable British standard which has been maintained, as a whole, throughout the Empire. Thirteen years ago I had to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to the question of the homicide of a native by a well-known settler. I had to bring it up again and again, and eventually that gentleman was deported from the Colony. We have had a very painful case in the last year where a native, for the trifling offence of riding a mare in foal, was whipped to death, the white settler commencing the whipping, then three successive native servants carrying on the whipping, and the man then being revived—
    Mr. THOMAS: I am, of course, well aware of the case to which the hon. Member is referring. May I assure him that no good purpose would be served by relating the horrible story? I have
    204
    already dealt with the case, although it occurred before I came into office, and I would ask the hon. Member not to labour it here, because more harm than good would be done. I give him the assurance that I know all about it, unfortunately, and have dealt with it.
    Mr. HARVEY: I am very glad indeed to know that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the case, and I do not wish to press the sad details upon the Committee, or to suggest for a moment that it is typical of what goes on. These incidents, however, have happened, and I want to mention the fact that the learned Judge, in dealing with the case, referred to the fact that enough notice had not, apparently, been taken of previous judgments in similar cases. Therefore, I beg that, in connection with this railway, which is carried out with British money for the benefit, as we all believe, of the natives of this Colony, the utmost care will be taken that a right standard is maintained as regards labour conditions and as regards punishment. In Nigeria, Sir Frederick Lugard has made a report in which he has definitely set aside the idea of compulsory labour, even for the railways. I know that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors have limited the provisions as to compulsory labour in Kenya, and that it can only take place with the consent of the Secretary of State. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will maintain the standard in Kenya Colony which has been already arrived at in Nigeria, and that we shall not have compulsory labour, even for what is a public good, in the case of this railway. I am sure I am appealing to one who sympathises with the object of my appeal.
    I want to ask one further thing. This great standard has been laid down by the late Government, and it is going to be maintained by the present Government, I am sure; but there has been a widespread sense that in the past, repeatedly, things have gone on in Kenya Colony which have been contrary to that I standard. It is not a small thing; it is not a matter of just inquiring into one particular injustice or wrong; the whole interest, the whole well-being of the commonwealth of the Empire, ultimately depends upon our maintaining the standard of justice, and on our having a higher standard than any other nation has

    205
    —and I believe we have it—in dealing with native races. Therefore, I press the right hon. Gentleman to grant an inquiry into the way in which the principle laid down in this White Paper of the late Government is being carried out, and what improvements can be made in conditions there in order that the standard may be carried out even better than it is at present. I feel sure that it will give the utmost satisfaction, not only to members of this party or of his own party, but to Members in all parts of the House, if he can see his way to do that.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: There is only one respect in which I would advise caution to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that is that he should beware when all people speak well of him, since there has been an almost unanimous chorus of praise of his attitude in the course of this Debate. I hope he will also be cautious with me, because I should just like to add one word to the general chorus. I welcome, as I think everyone in the House welcomes, the fact that he has publicly announced his intention of abiding by the declaration of policy of last July. I do not think there is a dissentient voice in the Committee belonging to any party that we now stand in Africa, as a country, for trusteeship for the natives. No one now denies it. But I think it was, at any rate, a remarkable step to take to make that principle perfectly explicit instead of having been more or less implicit, as it was beforehand. The hon. Member who has just spoken has referred to difficulties which have been felt with regard to the railways and the particular lines they have taken. I inquired into some of those points myself, and I was satisfied that the reasons for the particular routes taken by the branch lines were adequate and right. I believe myself that there is every justification, though my data and knowledge are not full, for the particular routes those branches of the railway are to take.
    But I think there is this good in the Debate that has occurred to-night, and may continue next day when the Vote is taken, that if we have made this declaration of policy with regard to trusteeship for the natives, it is now absolutely necessary that we have it quite scrupulously observed in every single detail.
    206
    Attention has been directed to it not only in this country and in British dependencies, but also in foreign countries, and we therefore stand as a cynosure. For that very reason we look to the Secretary for the Colonies to give us quite full information, both now and later, with regard to the administration of the African dependencies, and of Kenya in particular. This matter will be important when it comes to such questions as to how the money is to be raised for paying the interest on this loan when it comes to be payable, and whether the incidence will then be fair as between the different parts of the population in the Colonies. If what I have said is true generally, it is true particularly with regard to India. I hope they will accept the settlement reached last July, but one thing that is again quite clear is that they will be the more likely to accept it permanently if they can realise that we have been absolutely sincere, not merely in our declarations but in the action we have taken subsequently, to carry that declaration into effect. The hon. Member who has just spoken has proposed that in order to see that things are put on right lines, or kept on right lines, there should be a Commission of inquiry.
    Mr. HARVEY: I did not wish to insist on a Commission. I am quite satisfied with an authoritative inquiry. It might be a single Commissioner.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am glad the hon. Member has made that correction, because I always think when one of our great public offices has work to do, it really ought to be looked to, first of all, to see that it carries out that work of administration efficiently. From my own experience of several years of the Colonial Office I think the staff there are probably human like other mortals. They are liable to mistakes, like the rest of us, but there is one charge which could never be brought properly and truthfully against them, and that was that they were lacking in zeal in protecting the African native population. I am never much enamoured of Committees of Inquiry. I think, perhaps, there is more reason for inquiring in this case than there is in most, but not necessarily by a Committee. I think one might leave that to the judgment of the Colonial Secretary. It is impossible to master the whole of

    207
    the details of an enormous Department like this within a few weeks, however early he may arrive or however late he goes away. It is also true that this is one of those cases where no one really understands the whole bearing of the case unless they have seen it on the spot. That is an advantage which has been enjoyed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). I know that is so from my own experience in other matters. As an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, I used to read reports and statistics, but I never could understand them until I had been and seen the work in operation. If the Secretary of State for the Colonies cannot himself go, I suggest that he might follow the useful precedent of sending the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, with other officials from the Colonial Office, on a visit to the Colony in order to see that as we have laid down a particular policy it is being carried out in detail, according to the principles that we have laid down.
    I would make one further suggestion for his consideration. I cannot help feeling that there is one inference to be drawn from the interesting speeches that hav been made to-night by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir E. Hamilton), who was Chief Justice of the Colony, and possesses a great deal of local knowledge, and by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir S. Henn). Those speeches led to a conclusion, which some time or other the Colonial Office will have to face and this Committee will have to face, and that is whether, if we are going to spend money properly on the best objects, we should not have out there a Governor-General, to see that there is useful co-ordination and the best expenditure of the money which we vote There is a certain amount of apprehension in some quarters on this subject. The Chancellor of the Duchy would view a proposal like that with apprehension. Perfectly frankly, they are afraid that other territories, like Tanganyika, may be "Kenyaised." That is an extreme view. I do not take it in the least.
    I do not think there will be a saving in such a proposal. If anything, it will cost more. The idea that we should have a saving under such a system is really based on an entire misapprehension of what the costs are likely to be. But the Governor-General would be able to get
    208
    away from the influence of any one particular place. He would be able to take a conspectus of the needs of the whole territory. Take what has been said about the railways. There will need to be management of the railways under one authority, and that will be more necessary when the railways in Tanganyika are linked up with Kenya and they in turn with Uganda and towards the north. In the same way there have been different views advanced in regard to cotton-growing and the methods of cotton-growing, whether by native cultivation or otherwise. Then there is the question whether the coffee crop should be grown or should not be grown. So in the matter of other natural products. These matters could be dealt with far best under a united administration. Then there are the habits of the people, those that can be transplanted from one place and those that cannot.
    I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever he might delegate for that purpose, should have an eye and see whether the time is not now ripe—it has been mooted for several years—when the administration of these different territories should be co-ordinated in the way I have suggested. This must appeal to anyone who has imagination and who looks forward. Here you have British territory, stretching from 15 degrees south of the equator to five degrees north of it, 1,200 miles in length, before you get to the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and with an average breadth of 700 miles. If you take in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, you have a further 15 degrees to the north of that. It is quite an amazing territory with amazing possibilities. If it were developed in the way it can be developed, with a really strong and centralised administration coupled with the true carrying out of the statement of policy of Africa for the benefit primarily of the Africans that we had last July, a noble page will have been turned over in the history of colonial administration.
    Mr. ROYCE: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words on the subject of railways in Africa, and especially with regard to the proposed extensions now under consideration. I have a distinct remembrance of being associated with the inception of the Uganda Railway some 30 odd years ago. I thought a very great mistake was made when it was handed

    209
    over to the Indian Government for construction and, subsequently, events proved that anticipation unfortunately correct. A good deal of trouble has ensued in consequence of that. The influx of the East Indian people has brought troubles, not only in East Africa, but in India itself, where the Indian question has been used, and rights have been claimed which have reacted again in India to their very great disadvantage and detriment. It is not with regard to ancient history I wish to speak. Some suggestion was made with regard to the alignment of the railway. I have always noticed that when an engineer has made his survey, he is perfectly satisfied that it cannot be improved upon. When he expresses that satisfaction to me I know it can be improved upon, because if he makes up his mind as to the best route I know he may be wrong.
    I suggest a Commission should be established in connection with the expenditure of so much money, not necessarily to take precedence of that skilful and competent staff, about which the late Colonial Secretary has spoken, but to supervise and generally to take control and be something which the Government itself can refer to for advice and help in connection with the expenditure of so large a sum, and with the great interest involved in that direction in connection with alignment, construction and with all the details that pertain to-day. The late Colonial Secretary made a suggestion, and it is not altogether an unprofitable one, that the two systems of contract and departmental work should be attempted in relation to one or other sections of the railway. I presume he meant that each particular line should be subjected to a certain form of construction. There is something to be said for that, but do not attempt to mix them on the same lines. I might suggest for the information of the Colonial Secretary that it has been my lot to construct a railway under contract and work it for two years, and hand it over to the State to which it belonged; a State railway constructed by a contractor and worked for two years. It worked very admirably, I believe, because it afforded the State an opportunity of ascertaining not only a fixed sum for the construction but the opportunity of semi-private management for two years. The State certainly
    210
    received some benefit by it, because they had the opportunity of knowing how a private individual could work it. I should like to say, for the information of those who favour nationalisation, that when the State did take it over they worked it to greater advantage than the contractors had done. That would be a measure that could very easily be worked.
    I would like to say a word or two with regard to the question of native consideration. I agree absolutely that native consideration should be the first object in our African administration, because the native is to a great extent under our care, and cannot look after himself. For that reason and to that extent I am a negrophile. There may be one or two solitary instances where irregularities and, perhaps, great brutality have been exercised in the case of natives, but it I should not be considered that these are characteristic of white settlers in these countries. While I do regard the standpoint of natives as being the first consideration for a country that takes over the administration of native countries and territories, still if it had not been for the white settlers you would not have wanted these railways at all, and when you bring white men into contact with natives, you must, to a certain extent, exercise your rule with such judgment as to enable those people to live side by side.
    That is a thing that I would bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman—that he must not be altogether misled by sentimental issues dealing with only one side of the question. It is very difficult for a white person to live surrounded by natives who have not yet been brought under the rules and discipline that animate white people in this country. You do find sometimes cases of irregularity and brutality, and I have no doubt, if you look for them, you could find just about as many here in peaceful England as you would find in the Colonies of the Empire. So I would say that this question should be dealt with with very great care, and that nothing should be done or said to hurt the feelings of those white men who go out to these countries and extend the bounds of our Empire, or that would tend to hamper in any way their devotion to this country, and that they should not feel that in this Parliament, the chief Assembly of our Empire, we have feelings other than those of the

    211
    profoundest consideration and regard for these people, while we look after the interests of the natives who are entirely dependent upon our care. There is one other subject to which I would refer, but as I understand that it is desired to get the Vote, I shall not continue my remarks.
    Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I have a right to discuss this matter when we are asked to give £3,500,000 to a country that has already cost us £3,000,000 and in the administration of that £3,000,000 I see matter for very grave complaint. In view of that fact and the fact that I cannot obtain from the Colonial Secretary replies to questions that I have asked, I am entitled to ask these questions in this Committee, and the fact that the Vote cannot be obtained to-night does not move me in the least.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  REPORT [20TH FEBRUARY]

    CLASS VII.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1924, for the Salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grunts and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, Public Utility Companies, &c., sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1922, certain Grants in Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."
    Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    It being after Eleven of the clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    LONDON TRAFFIC.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall]
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I wish to raise the question of London Traffic. The Prime Minister this after noon gave us a reply to a question with regard to amending legislation on this subject, but I thought it was a fitting opportunity to-night to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can elaborate in some detail what the intentions of the Government are in this respect. It will be within the recollection of the House that a Bill upon this subject was undertaken by the late Government. The problem of London traffic, as everybody knows, is an extremely complex one. Although I do not say that the Bill which we possessed was an agreed Bill, yet. I maintain that there was a certain amount of general support which promised that such a Bill would become law. From the answers to the questions which have been put to the Government, it is clear the contents of the late Bill, as we will call it, have not been received with favour by the present Government, and I will not be so impertinent as to ask the Minister what are the provisions of the Bill which the Prime Minister promised to introduce. But I ask that the traffic question should not be used as a lever to force on the ideas possessed by several hon. Members opposite of a Greater London authority. Should that be done, then, of course, resistance to a Bill of that kind would naturally follow. I maintain that the traffic question, urgent, as it is, must be regarded as something quite apart from the reorganisation of the big London authorities. I am convinced that even if the Minister has hopes and ideas as to a Greater London authority, he can invent a Measure capable of being transferred in toto from the Ministry of Transport to such an authority, should he ever have it established.
    I know that this problem is a particularly urgent one. Everybody who lives in London knows that. And I also think that, on a question like this, which changes in its difficulties from day to day, any legislation that we may pass to-day may be hopelessly inadequate to-morrow. The problem, as anyone who has gone into

    213
    it knows, is of extreme complexity. The conditions due to motor traffic are changing from hour to hour, and in that connection I wonder if the Minister can say what are the views of his Department upon what is known as the Yarrow bridge. It is a most astonishing thing that, in this great city, we have no powers of controlling the traffic such as are possessed by any ordinary provincial town. First, we cannot even limit the number of omnibuses, nor have we the power to prescribe their routes; and one of the most distressing things is that we have no power to co-ordinate those undertakings which have the right to pull up the roadways. At any time an authority may build the most perfect road in the world, and a fortnight afterwards other authorities can pull it up quite irrespective of the time of the year at which it is done. These are conditions which I attribute to no particular party. They have grown up, but, none the less, they are a scandal and should be removed as soon as possible. I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Transport upon his appointment, and I doubly congratulate him because he is in the position of Minister of Transport, whereas I think his immediate predecessors have been Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry. I hope, when he makes his first statement, he will be able to tell us and all Londoners that he has a Measure in preparation which will be introduced immediately, so that it may become operative in the summer months.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Nobody expects the Minister of Transport, at this juncture in the consideration of the Bill which is probably before the Government, to give any detailed reply as to the nature of the Bill which will be introduced. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) has warned the Minister, or has asked him to recognise that the present is not the time when the ideal of a Greater London scheme can be carried out. It has been suggested by the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) that the only difficulty in the way of the rapid passage of a Transport Bill for London, is the London Labour party. That misrepresentation has been cultivated by the Conservative party and by ex-Ministers who, if
    214
    they had only handled the question rationally, might have brought about a settlement of the problem. There has been persistent misrepresentations as to the position of hon. Members on these benches, by the Conservative party, by ex-Ministers, I am afraid also by certain officials and by the Conservative Press. It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that the Labour Members representing Greater London are fighting to the death at this juncture for an ideal re-organisation of London government. We stand in the end, it is true, for a general municipal authority controlling all the essentially large-scale services of a local character over the Greater London area, over the metropolitan police district or something like the proposed electricity district suggested by the Electricity Commissioners under the Act of 1919. In the end that will be the only satisfactory way of dealing with London traffic, which is intimately associated with all the other departments of local government in the Metropolis. You cannot divorce traffic considerations from town-planning; that is why the hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessor proposed to introduce town-planning in the Bill. If you do that, you are involved in the whole question of where the people are to live. Then you must face the questions of education, of water, of electricity, of main drainage, and the whole field of local government. The danger is the specialist, the man who wants to make roads till the whole world shall consist of roads. The man who was most prominently identified with the Conservative party's policy in this matter was a gentleman who knew a great deal about roads but not a great deal about the philosophy of local government.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us his name?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am young, but not quite so young as that. May I appeal to the Government not to make up their minds to follow the policy of the Tory party. The Tory policy is directed against the right of the people of London to control their own affairs. They want not only that the police shall not be under the control of London, but that the traffic—involving the traffic combine, an

    215
    enormous financial corporation with mysterious finances that have association with not only London but Amsterdam and other Continental places-shall be controlled by the Minister of State whose Department they think they could influence. The mistake previous Governments have made is in thinking that modern London, with its big Labour movement, with its new spirit of public administration is going to allow them to wipe their feet on it as old Tory London allowed to be done.[Laughter.] That laugh comes from the hon. Gentlemen opposite. They used to laugh like that about Ireland. They laughed about various Imperial questions involving certain dependencies of this country. They now laugh about London.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: We are laughing at you.
    Mr. MORRISON: I tell them that within a short time they will realise that they cannot do with London to-day, with its big Labour representation, what they could do with old London dominated by the Tory party. The wise thing for the Government would be to have regard to the declarations of its own party—of the National Executive of the Labour party—apart from the London Labour party, and try and get a settlement on the basis that the people of London should have a right to control their own traffic and settle the lines upon which it is going to be run. We are not trying to obstruct this question being dealt with. We want it dealt with. Nobody appreciates more than do the London Labour Members of Parliament how urgent the question is. It affects the passengers and the workpeople and the convenience of the general travelling public, but we beg the Minister to have regard to the elements of local self-government and to see that the people of London really shall have a decisive voice in London traffic policy and the organisation of London's traffic.
    I suggest to hon. Members opposite, that they might have got agreement on this question if they had not ridden roughshod over London, and tried to impose a dictatorship from Whitehall upon it; and I suggest to the present Government that there is plenty of room for agreement provided that that is understood. But I
    216
    resent the efforts of the Conservative party to try and pitchfork this new Labour Government into the Tory party's policy, and I warn this Government that, if it is going to fall into the policy of the Tory party, if it should think for a moment of introducing their Bill instead of a Labour Bill, there is going to be difficulty. I am sure the Minister of Transport, with his many years of occupation in the work of local government in London, will have some respect for the people of London, and will not submit to the temptations of hon. Members opposite, who would lead him astray. London is a great city, and I do not know that I am particularly anxious that London should be run by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham. I would much rather that London people should run London for themselves. This is essentially a local question. Nobody would dare to go to Manchester, Glasgow or Edinburgh and impose this kind of thing on them, and say that they shall be run from Whitehall. Although London is on the doorstep of this House, and Whitehall is in London, London has an equal right with Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow to control her own destinies and her own services, and I hope this Government will not disgrace itself, or its party, or its great democratic ideals, or its association with the high principles of local self-government, by falling into the questionable Bill that the Conservative party desire to introduce, a Bill which, first of all, was wrong in handing London in this important respect over to a State Department, and, secondly, which had more regard, I am afraid, to the interests of the traffic combine than it had to the interests of the passenger public of London. I hope Ministers will not fall into the trap which is being so carefully laid for them by the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and by the capitalistic newspapers outside. This question has been gratuitously raised to-night from the other side, but as it has been raised, I wanted to give a brief indication of the fact that at any rate the Labour Members of Parliament of Greater London on this occasion are going to put up a real fight for the lights of London, and the rights of the people of London to control their own local destinies.
    Viscount CURZON: I would invite the Minister to disavow the words of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), who spoke last, in referring to a distinguished civil servant, who cannot reply for himself. I think that it is very unfair that he should be attacked in this way by an hon. Member opposite, and I am certain that if he were attacked in that way he would feel about it as I do.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I daresay in the new office that I hold I shall make mistakes, but I am going to try and avoid the first mistake, and not be drawn into a Debate on the Adjournment of the House upon a Bill that is not complete and has yet to be introduced. I think it would be fatal if at this moment I disclosed matters that are not finally decided. After what the Prime Minister told the House to-day, that the matter was still being considered with a view to getting larger and fuller co-operation, it would be a very great mistake on my part to try and pacify my hon. Friend on the left or my hon. Friend on the right. I want to stand between the two of them
    218
    for a little while and see what can be done to bring them together. This morning I saw a very important deputation on this matter, and since the Prime Minister spoke I have seen others this evening, and I hope to see more to-morrow. If hon. Members will have a little more patience, we shall save time by my not disclosing anything until I am a little more sure of my ground, and I hope to save time upstairs by getting a better measure of agreement before we start. In these circumstances, I am sorry I cannot answer the hon. Member.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The hon. Gentleman then thinks there is a great probability of getting a Measure passed into law by the summer?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am very anxious it should be done this summer, because of what is going to happen, of which we all know.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).
  NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).
AGRICULTURE.
  POTATOES (HIGH PRICES).
  POTATOES (HIGH PRICES).
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (HOUSEHOLD BUDGETS).
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (HOUSEHOLD BUDGETS).
  HOPS.
  HOPS.
  LIVESTOCK (PRICES).
  LIVESTOCK (PRICES).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  CONCILIATION COMMITTEES.
  CONCILIATION COMMITTEES.
  FEEDING STUFFS AND FERTILISERS (PRICES).
  FEEDING STUFFS AND FERTILISERS (PRICES).
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
  LAND CULTIVATION.
  LAND CULTIVATION.
  TUBERCULOSIS ORDER.
  TUBERCULOSIS ORDER.
  BANKRUPTCIES.
  BANKRUPTCIES.
  RABBITS AND VERMIN (TRAPPING).
  RABBITS AND VERMIN (TRAPPING).
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES, DOMINIONS (TRIBUNALS).
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES, DOMINIONS (TRIBUNALS).
  BRITISH EMIGRANTS' SUICIDES, CANADA.
  BRITISH EMIGRANTS' SUICIDES, CANADA.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  CEYLON.
  CEYLON.
  KENYA COLONY.
  KENYA COLONY.
  NAURU.
  NAURU.
  UASIN GISHU RAILWAY.
  UASIN GISHU RAILWAY.
  PALESTINE.
  PALESTINE.
  JAMAICA.
  JAMAICA.
  MALICIOUS INJURIES CLAIM, DOOLAN, COUNTY CLARE.
  MALICIOUS INJURIES CLAIM, DOOLAN, COUNTY CLARE.
  TANGANYIKA.
  TANGANYIKA.
  HONG KONG HARBOUR (LIFE-SAVING MEASURES).
  HONG KONG HARBOUR (LIFE-SAVING MEASURES).
  WRANGEL ISLAND EXPEDITION.
  WRANGEL ISLAND EXPEDITION.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  AUSTRALIAN CABLES (TERMINAL CHARGE).
  AUSTRALIAN CABLES (TERMINAL CHARGE).
  PLANTATION RUBBER.
  PLANTATION RUBBER.
  ARGENTINE MEAT.
  ARGENTINE MEAT.
  EXPORT CREDITS.
  EXPORT CREDITS.
  COMBINES.
  COMBINES.
  PETROL AND PARAFFIN PRICES.
  PETROL AND PARAFFIN PRICES.
  EXPORTS TO NEW ZEALAND.
  EXPORTS TO NEW ZEALAND.
  GREENGROCERIES (COMPULSORY WEIGHING).
  GREENGROCERIES (COMPULSORY WEIGHING).
  FABRIC GLOVE INDUSTRY.
  FABRIC GLOVE INDUSTRY.
  DYESTUFFS.
  DYESTUFFS.
  MATCH TRADE (PROFITS).
  MATCH TRADE (PROFITS).
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  GERMAN CURRENCY.
  GERMAN CURRENCY.
TRANSPORT.
  PORT AUTHORITIES (LABOUR REPRESENTATION).
  PORT AUTHORITIES (LABOUR REPRESENTATION).
  ROAD VEHICLES (REGULATION).
  ROAD VEHICLES (REGULATION).
  ELEVATED ROAD CROSSINGS.
  ELEVATED ROAD CROSSINGS.
  MALL (RE-LAYING WOOD PAVING).
  MALL (RE-LAYING WOOD PAVING).
  LONDON TRAFFIC.
  LONDON TRAFFIC.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  OWNERS AND WORKERS (NEGOTIATIONS).
  OWNERS AND WORKERS (NEGOTIATIONS).
  STATISTICAL SUMMARIES.
  STATISTICAL SUMMARIES.
  MECHANICAL HAULAGE.
  MECHANICAL HAULAGE.
  NATIONAL CONTROL.
  NATIONAL CONTROL.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  FOREST APPRENTICES.
  FOREST APPRENTICES.
  CIVIL SERVICE.
  CIVIL SERVICE.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES (J. BEDDALL).
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES (J. BEDDALL).
  MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.
  MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.
HOUSING.
  STOKE NEWINGTON.
  STOKE NEWINGTON.
  EVICTIONS (POOR LAW ACCOMMODATION).
  EVICTIONS (POOR LAW ACCOMMODATION).
  CANAL WORKERS.
  CANAL WORKERS.
  POPLAR BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  POPLAR BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  MILK AND DAIRIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT.
  MILK AND DAIRIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  CONDENSED MACHINE-SKIMMED MILK.
  CONDENSED MACHINE-SKIMMED MILK.
  INFECTIVE JAUNDICE.
  INFECTIVE JAUNDICE.
  IMPERIAL AIRSHIP SCHEME.
  IMPERIAL AIRSHIP SCHEME.
  LABOUR AND SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL.
  LABOUR AND SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL.
  PARLIAMENTARY LABOUR LEADERS, AUSTRALIA (TELEGRAM).
  PARLIAMENTARY LABOUR LEADERS, AUSTRALIA (TELEGRAM).
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION, PONTYPRIDD.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION, PONTYPRIDD.
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  POLICE PENSIONERS' WIDOWS.
  POLICE PENSIONERS' WIDOWS.
  JUVENILE COURTS.
  JUVENILE COURTS.
  OMNIBUS DRIVER'S APPEAL (COSTS).
  OMNIBUS DRIVER'S APPEAL (COSTS).
  STAG HUNTING.
  STAG HUNTING.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  DOCK STRIKE (FALSE NEWS).
  DOCK STRIKE (FALSE NEWS).
  WAR-TIME BUILDINGS (ROYAL PARKS).
  WAR-TIME BUILDINGS (ROYAL PARKS).
  HYDE PARK (FLOWER BEDS).
  HYDE PARK (FLOWER BEDS).
  WAR INVENTION CLAIM (MR. J. M. CAMPBELL).
  WAR INVENTION CLAIM (MR. J. M. CAMPBELL).
  ROYAL NAVY (CRUISER CONSTRUCTION).
  ROYAL NAVY (CRUISER CONSTRUCTION).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PALESTINE).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PALESTINE).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  WAR WIDOWS (BENEFIT).
  WAR WIDOWS (BENEFIT).
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  TRADE DISPUTES.
  TRADE DISPUTES.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (OVERTIME).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (OVERTIME).
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT (BANK LINE, LTD.).
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT (BANK LINE, LTD.).
  BUCKINGHAM LOCAL PENSION COMMITTEE.
  BUCKINGHAM LOCAL PENSION COMMITTEE.
  DOMINIONS (NATIONAL DEBTS).
  DOMINIONS (NATIONAL DEBTS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  MUNITION FACTORY EXPLOSION (SLADE GREEN).
  MUNITION FACTORY EXPLOSION (SLADE GREEN).
  NATIONAL GALLERY.
  NATIONAL GALLERY.
  INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE POLICIES.
  INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE POLICIES.
  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (RATES).
  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (RATES).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS (DISCHARGES).
  TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS (DISCHARGES).
  SOUTHBOBOUGH COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
  SOUTHBOBOUGH COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
  DISTRESS FUNDS.
  DISTRESS FUNDS.
SCOTLAND.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS.
  LOCAL TAXATION.
  LOCAL TAXATION.
  MIDHURST SCHOOL (ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING).
  MIDHURST SCHOOL (ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING).
POST OFFICE.
  GOLDERS GREEN (TELEPHONE EXCHANGE).
  GOLDERS GREEN (TELEPHONE EXCHANGE).
  BLIND PERSONS (WIRELESS LICENCES).
  BLIND PERSONS (WIRELESS LICENCES).
  MANIPULATIVE GRADES (LEAVE).
  MANIPULATIVE GRADES (LEAVE).
  HULL (MORNING DELIVERY OF LETTERS).
  HULL (MORNING DELIVERY OF LETTERS).