Sitting of 10 July 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Stratford - upon - Avon Extension) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Keighley Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the, Third time To-morrow.

COLONIAL STOCK ACT, 1900.
Copy ordered "of Treasury List of Colonial Stocks in respect of which the provisions of the Act are for the time being complied with.'—[Mr. Griffiths.]
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
Copy ordered "of statement of particulars of Loans of which the balances out standing are proposed to be remitted or written off in whole or in part, from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 94, of Session, 1923)."—[Mr. Griffiths.]
McKENNA IMPORT DUTIES.
Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: I beg to present a humble petition, signed by 8,990 persons employed in the motor car and other industries, praying that this House do not abolish the duties imposed by the Finance Act, 1915.

VENTILATION OF HOUSE.
Captain Viscount CURZON:On a point of Order. May I again intercede for open windows?
Mr. SPEAKER: I mentioned the matter yesterday, and shall do so again to-day.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    TUBERCULOSIS CASES (PRESTON HALL, MAIDSTONE).
    Major WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Pensions if he can see his way, by legislative or administrative action, to placing on a permanent and more satisfactory basis the pensions of men suffering from incurable tuberculosis in Preston Hall, near Maidstone?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Roberts): The men suffering from tuberculosis who are inmates of Preston Hall, are in that institution either for periods of treatment, or for treatment combined with a course of training. Such cases are not, therefore, in a condition in which a final award could properly be determined in the interests of the men themselves.

    HOME TREATMENT (ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Pensions if he is now prepared to reconsider the question of allowances to pensioners undergoing home treatment, who, in many cases, are refused any treatment allowance, even when the disability for which they are receiving treatment prevents them following their normal occupation?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot, I fear, add anything to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend in reply to his question on the same point on the 26th ultimo.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the mind of the right hon. Gentleman closed entirely to any revision of these cases of hardship?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir; but I am awaiting the results of the procedure that is now being followed.

    REVISION.
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether the present rates of pensions awarded to sufferers through the Great War are due for revision in 1926; and whether, having regard to the high cost of living, he will take action to stabilise the present rates and allow men who are commuting portions of their pension to commute same on the rates payable under the Royal Warrant, 1919, and not on the rates of the 1918 Warrant as at present?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not consider that I could properly take any steps at the present time to anticipate the decision on rates of pension, to the conditions that may obtain in the future. The maximum which may be commuted must, accordingly, continue to be calculated on the basis of the 1918 Warrant rates plus 20 per cent bonus. I may, however, explain that the question of the revision of rates does not otherwise affect commutation, since the capital sum granted is based upon the actual weekly amount of money which is surrendered.
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that pensions awarded under Article 1163 of the Royal Warrant, 1914, are based on pre-War rates, he will take action with a view to ensuring that the men pensioned under this Article shall receive increase of pension in accordance with the Pension (Increase) Act, 1920, and the Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1924?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the cases in which a pension under this Article has been granted since the beginning of the War. The Article 1163 award is a reserved right, and men now drawing a pension at the rates of that Article are, in fact, receiving compensation which is as good as, if not better than, that available for men fulfilling the same qualifying conditions, and dealt with exclusively either by the Ministry's Warrants or post-War Warrants. The awards made in these cases were, therefore, held to be outside the scope of the out the intention of Parliament in the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920. The
    2430
    suggestion made by my hon. Friend, which would affect the Service Departments as well as the Ministry, will he considered when the amending Warrants necessary to give effect to the Bill now before the House are drafted.

    APPEALS (TIME LIMIT).
    Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that all those ex-service men whose time limit for appeal expired on 6th February, 1924, had no reasonable notice of this fact; and will he give a short extension of time and send to each man an individual notice stating his right of appeal?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The regulations governing the class of case referred to were published in February, 1923, and at the same time notice of the right of appeal was published in six issues of the principal newspapers circulating in London and the provinces and in three issues of the monthly journal of the British Legion. Notices were also displayed in the local offices of the Ministry, and in January last a reminder was circulated to the Press by whom it was given wide publicity. The right of appeal is limited by statute to the period of one year, and I have, therefore, no authority to extend it.
    Captain BOWYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the notice in the London newspapers was confined to six inches in one paper, and does he think that their residing all over Great Britain can reasonably be said to have received notice when this was the case; why will he not give individual notice as has been done? He has the addresses of these men.
    Mr. ROBERTS: My information is not in accord with that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The notice was issued in six issues of six separate newspapers. In regard to the incidental circumstances of the appeal, the tribunal has now been given the right to hear such cases if they think well.
    Mr. BAKER: In those cases in which the right hon. Gentleman promises that the case shall go to a tribunal, although it is out of time, is he aware that the Ministry is still objecting to the appeal being heard by the tribunal on the ground that it is out of time?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir; we are not definitely objecting: we are simply calling attention to the fact that it is out of time.
    Captain BOWYER: Is it not the fact that the tribunal never does hear a case if 6th February had passed before the man made application?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am not aware of that fact. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bring cases of the sort to my notice I will have them looked into.
    Captain BOWYER: I beg to give notice that at the first opportunity—on the Adjournment, it may be—I shall call attention to this matter.

    FINAL AWARDS.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the general dissatisfaction existing in regard to the system of making final awards to pensioners whose disabilities are assessed at less than 20 per cent., he will take steps to abolish this system at an early date?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am not at present convinced that the course suggested, which would involve amendment of the Act, is called for. Cases of the class referred to, like those of any other class, in which it is shown that the last award was erroneously declared final, will, it is anticipated, be met by the arrangements which have recently been introduced to deal with cases of serious error. I am carefully watching the operation of these arrangements. I may perhaps remind my hon. Friend that cases of minor disablement have never, under the Pensions Warrants, been entitled to a continuing pension, and their position in this respect has not been affected by the final award.

    ROYAL MARINES.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Minister of Pensions under what authority payment of service pension to invalided Royal Marines is not payable until after 14 years' service, observing that under the terms of Item 15 of the Admiralty Fleet Order No. 2359/1920 provision is made for all continuous service men after 10 years' service, and no distinction is made between seamen and marines?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Admiralty Fleet Order referred to was, I understand, intended, as indeed its terms clearly in-
    2432
    dicate, to define the rates of pension to be paid in the various cases dealt with, and not to introducce any change in the conditions of eligibility for life pension. Non-continuous service ratings and marines have always been required to render 14 years' service to qualify, and accordingly service allowances are awarded only in respect of such minimum period of service.

    RETIRED NAVAL OFFICERS.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that naval officers retired upon the special terms granted in 1922, for the purpose of clearing the lists, as eligible for disability pensions even though seriously disabled; that naval officers who retired under this scheme were not informed that they would forfeit all claim to a disability pension; and whether he will consider a revision of this decision?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The position with regard to these eases was fully explained in the detailed answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 7th June, 1923, a copy of which I am sending him. The officers referred to are not ineligible for disability retired pay, subject to the conditions stated in the answer.

    CRAIGLEITH AND BELLAHOUSTON HOSPITALS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Pensions what sum would be required to put Bellahouston in a condition to receive the patients from Craigleith hospital?
    Mr. PHILLIPPSasked the Minister of Pensions whether any decision has been arrived at in reference to Craigleith military hospital, Edinburgh?
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is satisfied that there is no danger of fire in the Bellahouston premises if the patients are removed there from Craigleith pensions hospital?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am making comprehensive arrangements for hospital accommodation for my Department in Scotland, which, I believe, will prove satisfactory to all those interested, and which I hope shortly to be in a position to announce. As the matter has been mentioned, I may say that the reports which I have received from my advisers as regards fire precautions at Bellahouston hospital are satisfactory.
    Mr. PHILLIPPS: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet come to a decision in regard to the Craigleith hospital?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir; that decision is included in the comprehensive scheme that I am now considering. I hope shortly to make a statement.
    Mr. PHILLIPPS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very strong feeling exists in Edinburgh and the East and South-East of Scotland that it is not in the interests of these patients that they should be transferred to the Bellahouston hospital?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes; I have personally visited Edinburgh just recently, in fact the whole of the hospitals concerned, and as a result of my personal investigations I am now considering the matter.
    Captain BENN: If it is proposed to transfer any of these patients to wooden hutments, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is no risk of fire?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will leave the matter with the answers I have given There will be more information later.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it the policy of the Ministry of Pensions to transfer these cases to a military hospital?
    Captain BENNasked the Minister of Pensions what proportion of patients at the Craigleith Pensions Hospital come from the east and south-east of Scotland?
    Mr. ROBEFITS: I regret that the information asked for could not be obtained in the short time available, but I will endeavour to ascertain it and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what date he expects to reach a decision with reference to this matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: If the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his question on this day fortnight, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

    ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
    Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Pensions whether a man who is to-day drawing a disability pension, but who has now for the first time heard about the alternative pension, can apply for such an alternative pension?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Royal Warrant provides that a disabled pensioner may obtain an alternative pension, if found to be eligible for it, provided that he applies within one year of the first award of disability pension being made. Even if he is not eligible to obtain a pension at the time, but he considers that he may be under the necessity of claiming one at a subsequent date, he may merely record with the Ministry proof of his pre-War earnings, provided again that he does so within the period mentioned. The conditions of the Warrant as regards alternative pension have, from time to time, been extensively advertised in the Press, through the local offices of the Ministry and local War Pensions committees; and, to the fullest extent possible, to each individual pensioner on his first award of pension.
    Captain BOWYER: May I take it that the answer is that he can to-day apply for an alternative pension?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Subject to the conditions indicated.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    MAIDSTONE PRISON.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men are employed at His Majesty's Prison at Maidstone and how many of these are ex-service men?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): There are 74 persons employed, of whom 46 are ex-service men. The remaining 28 men have all been employed since before 1915.

    AIR MINISTRY.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether an investigating committee has yet been set up to deal with the case of ex-service men who failed to qualify in the Air Ministry Departmental examination; whether he is aware that frequent assurances have been given to the ex-service men's association that such a committee would be constituted; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I have been asked to reply to this question.

    2435
    As the Noble Lord is no doubt aware, Lord Southborough's Committee has now recommended that a further opportunity of competing for posts in the clerical and Departmental clerical classes should be given to ex-service men with certain qualifications as to length of service, and that regard should be had to the manner in which candidates are reported to have performed the duties required of them in a temporary capacity, 25 per cent. of the total marks in the examination being allotted to a Departmental Report as to the candidate's efficiency and capacity. I regard this new scheme as rendering unnecessary any continuation of the Investigating Boards recommended in the Third Report of the Lytton Committee.
    Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that no committee of this sort can be set up whatever, and can the hon. Gentleman assure us that ex-service men who go in for this examination will not subsequently have the result of the examination upset by a viva voce examination?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. R. Clynes): The short reply is that the latest recommendations of the Southborough Committee will apply to the Civil Service as a whole, and that will be a very much better method than the method which has so far obtained indicated in the question.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the Southborough Committee's Report only about 5,000 vacancies are allowed to be free for ex-service candidates, and does that really represent the total number of vacancies?
    Mr. CLYNES: It would be quite impossible, in reply to a question, to discuss the Report of the Committee, though there may be an opportunity later. It is true that the number of applications will be far in excess of any possible number of vacancies in the Service.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: What I wanted to ask was whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Southborough Committee said there would be 5,000 vacancies available for ex-service men, and is it not really the fact that 45,000 would be much nearer the mark?
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air in how many cases, respectively, women writing assistants are now employed in his Department in posts previously occupied by ex-service men, and in how many cases in future will ex-service men's posts eventually be filled by women; and whether, in view of the large number of unemployed ex-service men on the pool, he will give an undertaking that the number of posts available for ex-service men shall not be reduced by the further employment of writing assistants?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): The answer to the first part of the question is, none; as regards the second and third parts, if by "ex-service men's posts" the hon. and gallant Member means posts now filled by ex-service men, there is no intention of discharging any ex-service men to make room for writing assistants, but gradually and as the normal wastage occurs, it is expected that 192 such posts will eventually be filled by women. There is no present intention of increasing the number of writing assistant posts on the headquarters establishment.

    EMPLOYMENT (STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE).
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many times the standing joint committee for the employment of ex-service men has met this year; whether any Report of the work done by this committee will be published; and, if so, when it is expected that the Report will be available?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have been asked to take this question, and as the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: How many times has this committee met?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I think that it would be better for the hon. and gallant Member to wait for the long reply, which contains a number of figures.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Can we know whether the Report of this committee will be published?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I would like notice of that question.
    Mr. J. HARRIS: That is in the Question.
    Following is the answer:
    I am not sure to what committee the hon. Member refers. The standing joint committee for ex-service questions, representative of the Service Departments, the Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Pensions and the British Legion, has met three times this year, the last meeting being on the 27th June. It does not publish reports of its proceedings.
    Another committee, known as the Committee on the Re-employment of Ex-Service Men, having representatives of the Ministry of Labour, employers, trade unions and certain ex-service men's organisations, published an interim report on 12th August, 1920 (Cd. 951/1920). This committee last met in August, 1922, and in the absence of any specific items of business which it might usefully consider it is not at present the intention to call it together again.
    As the hon. Member is probably aware, the question of the employment of disabled ex-service men is dealt with by the King's Roll National Council, which meets periodically under the Chairmanship of Field-Marshal Earl Haig.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (EMPLOYMENT IN PRISONS)
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Home Secretary whether the Prison Commissioners make it a rule not to employ men who were conscientious objectors in the late War?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The answer is in the affirmative, and the Prison Commissioners in this matter are following the general rule governing the Civil Service.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Am I to understand that if an hon. Member knows of any conscientious objector who is employed, and the right hon. Gentleman's attention is drawn to him, he will at once replace him by an ex-service man?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot promise to do that. I can only promise to investigate any specific case which is brought to my notice.

    PRISON WARDERS (REGULATIONS)
    Mr. HAYCOCKasked the Home Secretary whether prison warders are allowed to speak to prisoners and give them good advice; if they do so would it be regarded as a, serious offence; and will he state the number of reports, the average fine, and the kind of punishment otherwise imposed on the officers for this offence during the past five years?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Officers would certainly not be reported or punished for speaking to prisoners and giving them good advice.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Is the Home Secretary aware that recently the Commissioners encouraged officers to take action of this kind as opportunity occurred?
    Mr. HAYCOCK: May I have an answer to the last part of my question?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think I can add anything to my answer

    PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
    Mr. H. H. SPENCERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the recent South African election the South African party polled 33 per cent. more votes than the Nationalists but the Nationalists obtained 20 per cent, more seats; and Whether this phenomenon will cause him to consider the advisability of introducing some scheme upon a correctly proportional system of representation for this House?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have seen statements in the Press to the effect suggested. The hon. Member was present, I believe, during the Debate on May 2nd on the Representation of the People Bill and will remember that I promised then that the Government would go very fully into the position.
    Captain BENN: What is the result of the Government's consideration of the question?
    Mr. HEALEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking into consideration the case of Fermanagh and Tyrone, where a Unionist vote to-day is equal to 2½ Catholic votes?

    WATERLOO BRIDGE.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to an interview with Chief Constable Bassom, of the Metropolitan Police, published in a London morning newspaper of 30th June, 1924, condemning proposals made by a Member of this House to the London County Council as to certain traffic considerations in connection with the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge, and asserting that the chief constable did not believe that Parliament would sanction the proposal as to tramways being extended to the south side of the Strand, not into the Strand, as erroneously stated; whether he is aware that such aspects of traffic policy are subjects of public controversy in London and in this House; and whether he will indicate to the official concerned that it is not desirable for him to take part in such public discussions on matters of policy, particularly as he is from time to time called upon to give evidence to Parliamentary Committees on traffic matters?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am informed that no such interview took place and that the paragraph in question gives a wholly misleading impression of Mr. Bassom's reply to a telephone inquiry. It is often necessary to communicate with the Press in regard to the details of traffic arrangements but the general rule that public servants should not pronounce upon matters of policy is well known and I have no reason to think that it is not strictly observed at Scotland Yard. I see no reason for any special instructions as the Commissioner of Police has complete confidence in Mr. Bassom's discretion.
    Mr. MORRISON: Will the officer and the newspaper concerned be advised to take more care in these interviews?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No; I do not think that is necessary in the circumstances of the case.

    OFF-LICENCES.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that of over 22,000 justices' off-licences, granted for the convenience of the public, a steadily increasing number have become tied to brewers; whether he has any information as to the number so tied; and
    2440
    whether he will introduce legislation to prevent further off-licences becoming tied and to facilitate the liberation of off-licences at present tied?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have no information as to the number of off-licences which are tied to brewers. I see no prospect of the introduction of legislation on the subject by the Government at present.

    MACHINE GUNS (EXPORT).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Home Secretary whether he can now state what proceedings he has instituted with reference to the recent smuggling of machine guns from this country to Russia?
    Marquess of TITCHFIELDasked the Home Secretary if he can state the port of destination to which the machine guns which were being smuggled out of this country were addressed?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I can at present add nothing to the answer I gave to a similar question on the 30th June.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he will be prepared to make a statement of policy on this important matter?
    Mr. HENDERSON: We have been making very strict inquiries and we hope to be in a position to proceed in a day or two.
    Major COLFOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an impression that arms are being exported to other countries besides Russia, such as Morocco?
    Mr. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the opinion of the greatest expert on gunrunning in this country?
    Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean the House to understand that he cannot answer Question 24?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have nothing to add to my answer at present.
    Captain BERKELEY: Is this not a violation of the Arms Traffic Convention?

    FIREARMS ACT (TOY PISTOLS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Home Secretary whether, with regard to the representations that have been addressed to him for some months past in regard to the desirability of including toy pistols and revolvers (which are being imported into this country in large quantities from Belgium and Germany) under the Firearms Act, which representations have been forwarded by responsible persons such as proof masters in this country who have brought forward in support of their request evidence that these pistols are manufactured in such a way that they can be easily converted into lethal weapons, and that their increasing importation into England has caused grave concern to the proof masters in the countries where they are manufactured; whether the authorities at Scotland Yard have been consulted as to the danger of allowing these so-called toy pistols to be imported and sold indiscriminately; and whether he will take immediate steps to bring these articles under the provisions of the Firearms Act?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The authorities of the Birmingham Proof House have urged that these devices, which as usually sold are not capable of discharging missiles, are within the Firearms Act. The question whether they are within the Act is one for the Courts. The police have instructions to prosecute for any noncompliance with the Act in the only circumstances in which the Act would appear to apply, namely, if these devices are sold or possessed after such alteration as to make them lethal weapons capable, of discharging missiles. I could not propose legislation to bring within the Act these devices when not so capable.
    Mr. HANNON:Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiries as to the extent to which these weapons are being introduced; and will he allow me to submit to him samples of these weapons?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Certainly.

    ABBAS HILMT II.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the claim of over £2,000,000 of the ex-Khedive of Egypt, Abbas Hilmi II, against the British Government in respect of valuable private property belonging to him, and
    2442
    consisting of palaces, works of art, land, and properties which were taken from him by the British military authorities during the War, and that it is necessary for the counsel and solicitors in this country who have been retained to represent the ex-Khedive to have constant access to and consultation with him, and for that purpose his presence now in England is essential for the preparation of his case and presentation to the proper tribunal; whether he is also aware that application has been made for a passport to enable the ex-Khedive to come to this country to consult with his legal advisers, and that such passport has been refused, although France, Belgium, Italy, and all other countries in Europe against which no claim is made by the ex-Khedive, have given him facilities to travel and reside in those countries; and whether, seeing that Egypt never was an enemy country, in the interests of justice, a passport will be issued to the ex-Khedive of Egypt to come to England to instruct and consult with his legal advisers so that he may obtain a full and fair hearing of his case?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir, His Majesty's Government are aware of the claim indicated in the question, but are not aware that there is anything to prevent the legal advisers of the ex-Khedive from having access to or consulting their client, or that it is essential for him to come to this country for the purpose; and, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I am not disposed to allow him to come here.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does the right hoe. Gentleman not agree that this treatment is hardly in accordance with British traditions, and that it is a denial of Justice against a man who has a legitimate claim against the Government, and it is impossible for his legal advisers to be constantly crossing from this country?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have already intimated that I have consulted my right hon. Friend. This is not a new case. My predecessors both at the Foreign Office and the Home Office could not see their way to give this permission, and so long as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, for public reasons, cannot agree, it is not always advisable, in the public interest, to state the reasons.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that it is not in the public interest to state the reasons why this man cannot be permitted to consult his own legal advisers in this country?
    Mr. HANNON: Have we not enough trouble in this country already?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it true, as alleged in the question, that this gentleman has a free right of travel in France, Belgium and Italy, and, if these countries can act so liberally in this matter, why cannot Great Britain do the same?
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it not a fact that, since 1896, the late Khedive consistently waged war against this country?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot state what is the position in regard to the countries named by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle).

  EDUCATION.

    ACTING TEACHERS' EXAMINATION.
    Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, pending the issue of the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Training of Teachers, he will state on what date the examination in place of the former acting teachers' examination will be held or, alternatively, resume the former examination for a limited period of years?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I may refer the Noble Lord to the answer given on Thursday, the 3rd July, to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley), a copy of which I am sending to him.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the President of the Board of Education what is the recognised Board of Education standard of marks necessary for a free place in a secondary school; and how many local authorities are asking that the standard should be raised?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board have not attempted to prescribe a minimum number of marks qualifying a candidate for a free place in a secondary school.
    2444
    In the explanatory note to their secondary school Regulations the Board have indicated the general principles which, in their view, should be adopted for determining a candidate's suitability for admission. I am not aware that any local authority has suggested that the standard indicated is too low.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman fix a standard?
    Mr. PRINGLE: How can there be a fixed standard?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I have said in my reply that we have indicated the general principles.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate a general standard?
    Mr. HANNON: Is it a fact that children in secondary schools have not the standard of training to fit them usefully to attend the schools?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Our experience is that the standard is steadily rising all the time.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman raise it now at once?
    Mr. COVE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all these examinations are conducted by local authorities and are all competitive, and that many thousands of children have qualified for whom no places are open?

    BURNHAM COMMITTEE (SCHOOLMASTER REPRESENTATIVES).
    Mr. L. THOMPSONasked the President of the Board of Education, if he is aware that the National Association of Schoolmasters have no representation on the Burnham Committee; and whether, seeing the association represents a substantial and rapidly growing number of schoolmasters, he will take Steps to have this association adequately represented?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Committee is not a Committee appointed by the Board of Education, and I have no power to modify its composition.

    MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. E. SIMONasked the President of the Board of Education how many local authorities have given maintenance

    2445
    allowances to children attending elementary schools; and what was the total cost for I922–23?
    Mr. TREVELYANDuring the year 1922–23, 27 local education authorities gave maintenance allowances to children in public elementary schools. The sums expended amounted, approximately, to £18,950.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Mr. E. SIMONasked the President of the Board of Education, whether he will introduce a Bill to amend the Education Act by raising the school-leaving age to 15, to come into force at a date not later than, say, August, 1927; and whether in the meantime he will require local education authorities to encourage parents to keep their children at school between the ages of 14 and 15 by the grant of maintenance allowances where necessary?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I am not prepared to propose a general raising of the school age until I have proof of a general readiness to welcome it. I have already explained that I am prepared to consider with sympathy proposals for increased provision of maintenance allowances for children over 14, and the raising of the school age to 15 by local education authorities who wish to do so by by-law. But it would not be good policy, even if possible, to impose upon local education authorities a requirement to provide maintenance allowances.
    Mr. EDWARD WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state from haw many local authorities he has received applications for sanction for by-laws to vary the school age?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: At present, two. There are others.
    Mr. COVE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to increase the financial aid to local authorities to enable them to give maintenance grants?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I am considering that question.
    Mr. FERGUSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of the people in Britain are against raising the school age?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not everyone who can speak for "the majority of the people."

    HIGH STREET SCHOOL, BROMLEY-BY-BOW.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to state when the London Education Authority proposes to provide efficient and healthy school accommodation for the children at present compelled to attend the High Street School, Bromley, E., which school has for years past been condemned by the Inspectors of his Department?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The London County Council have already submitted to the Board preliminary plans for the extension of the Old Palace School, one of the objects of which is to reduce the number of children attending the High' Street School, and the Board are now in communication with the Council on the matter. The plans of a new site for the High Street School have also been submitted by the Council, and the Board have agreed to pay grant on the expenditure involved in the purchase.

    CADETS (FEES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been reached with regard to the abolition of fees for cadets under training for the Royal Navy, His Majesty's Army, and the Royal Air Force, as in the case of the forces of Japan and the United States of America?
    Mr. CLYNES: This is an important question on which the Service Departments are in consultation, and there will be no unnecessary delay in reaching a decision.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know when a decision has been reached, so that I may put a question down and get the information?
    Mr. CLYNES: My hon. and gallant Friend has been very industrious in pressing this matter, and I am sure he will not neglect a later opportunity.

  HOUSING.

    AGRICULTURAL PARISHES.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Home Secretary how many prisons and reformatories are situated in agricultural parishes and where they are situated?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I will send to the hon. Member a copy of the Directory of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, which shows the situation of each school, and a list of prisons and Borstal institutions as published in the Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners.
    Mr. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also send one to his colleague, the Minister of Health, so that he may get to know how many agricultural parishes will not get desirable rest-houses because of the provision of these undesirable rest-houses in those parishes?
    Mr. HENDERSON: If my right hon. Friend intimates that he Jacks this information, I shall be glad to present him with a copy.

    INTEREST ON LOANS.
    Mr. H. H. SPENCERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the circulation in the country of the Minister of Health s calculations of the money that could be saved on house building if no interest were paid; and whether the paying of no interest on loans represents the policy of the Government?
    Mr. CLYNES: My right hon. Friend was concerned to show how large a part of the annual cost of a house is absorbed by interest on loans and, therefore, that practically the whole of the proposed Exchequer subsidy is required to meet the increased charge due to the higher rates of interest now in force than were in force before the War.
    Mr. SPENCER: May I have an answer to the second part of the question?
    Mr. CLYNES: That, was, in fact, answered by the Minister of Health a day or two ago in reply to a supplementary. It is not the policy of the Government to advance loans without interest.
    Mr. SPENCER: May we take it that these widespread figures which the right hon. Gentleman's party are circulating all over the country represent mere stupidity or hypocrisy?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to know that those are not phrases which I could pass in a question on the Notice Paper, and therefore they ought not to be introduced into a supplementary question.
    Mr. W. THORNE: As a matter of fact, the House is full of hypocrites.
    Mr. HOPE: Will not the banks make loans without interest when the right hon. Gentleman has carried out his policy of nationalising them?

    ISLE OF MAN (EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTION).
    Lieut.-Colonel A. POWNALLasked the Home Secretary what arrangements have been made with the Isle of Man with regard to the isle's contribution towards the Imperial Exchequer?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The matter is still under consideration.

    DISTURBANCE, FULHAM.
    Sir CYRIL COBBasked the Home Secretary whether he has any information as to the nature of the riot which took place in Fulham in connection with the eviction from Jordan Place; whether any organised body was responsible for the initiation of this riot; whether a police sergeant and several constables were injured in the execution of their duty; and whether any action has been taken against the rioters?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The Commissioner informs me that no riot took place in connection with the incident referred to. Two police officers were slightly injured, and three persons were arrested as a result of a street brawl on 7th July, but this was not directly connected with the eviction. The prisoners appeared at West London Police Court on 8th July; one was sentenced to one month's hard labour and two were fined 40s.
    Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the difference between a riot and a street brawl?
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can he say whether this organised body came from either Poplar or Battersea?

    MOTOR OMNIBUSES (LICENCES).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary the number of motor omnibuses licensed by the Metropolitan police during this year; and will he state how many of these belong to the underground combine company and how many belong to other owners?
    Mr. HENDERSON: From 1st January to 30th June, 1924, 2,663 omnibuses have been licensed by the Metropolitan police. Of these, 2,146 belong to the London General Omnibus Company and its allied companies, and 517 to other persons.

    TAXICABS (LICENCES).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary the total number of taximeter cabs licensed by the Metropolitan police for London; how many have been licensed during the present year; and whether there is now a new standard of taximeter cab required before a licence is granted?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Motor-cabs licensed during the year ended 30th June, 1924, numbered 7,918; 3,952 of the licences were issued during 1924. Since September last, motor-cabs have had to pass an efficiency test before they are licensed.

    DRIVERS' LICENCES (OMNIBUSES AND TAXICABS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary what tests are laid down by the Metropolitan police before they grant a driver's licence for a motor-omnibus or taxi-cab in London; whether there is an age and eyesight test; is he aware that the London County Council grant ordinary motor drivers' licences without any test at all; and whether, in the interest of public safety, steps will be taken to unify the tests for all motor drivers' licenees.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Before a licence is granted by the Metropolitan Police to a person to act as driver of a public carriage, including cabs, omnibuses and tramcars, the applicant must produce a certificate of medical fitness and must also pass a practical test of his ability to
    2450
    drive. When a man reaches the age of 65, or at such other times as the Licensing Authority may direct, a further certificate of medical fitness may be required. The sight-test is that recommended by the Royal College of Surgeons, and requires a standard of acuity with full field of vision. The latter part of the question is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Transport, and has received consideration by a committee appointed by that Ministry.
    Sir C. YATE: Is there any regulation to prevent motor-cab drivers smoking when driving fares? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]

    IRISH PRISONERS.
    Mr. HEALYasked the Home Secretary if be has received any recent communications from Labour organisations in Great Britain urging upon him to grant an amnesty to the Irish political prisoners in this country who have been in prison for two years; and if he has decided to accede to these requests?
    Mr. BARNESasked the Home Secretary whether there are any Irish political prisoners detained in the gaols of this country; if so, will he state to the House the number imprisoned; and whether he can see his way to grant an amnesty to these political prisoners?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have received some resolutions of the kind indicated from Labour organisations and others. Prisoners are not classified according to the motives underlying their offences, even when those motives are known, which is by no means always the case. I am not, therefore, in a position to answer the question as to a number. The reply as to an amnesty is in the negative.
    Mr. HEALY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the present Government ought to be more lenient towards political prisoners than the last Government; and, if so, is he prepared only to confine his professions to words?
    Mr. CRAWFORD GREENE: Did the right hon. Gentleman take any notice of these communications; and, if so, why?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the days before he became a member of the Government he was quite capable of classifying political prisoners, and fre-

    2451
    quently pleaded for an amnesty for such prisoners? Why has he now changed?
    Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that many of these prisoners are detained in custody in the interest of their own safety?
    Major COLFOX: Is it that the right hon. Gentleman does not answer because he cannot, or because he will not?
    Mr. GREENE: May I have an answer to my supplementary question?

    EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY INSURANCE.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Home Secretary if he can give for the years 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923, each year being stated separately, the amount of premiums paid to insurance companies in respect of employers' liability insurance under the Act of 1880, the amounts received by the companies from interest and dividend upon reserves, the amounts spent in working expenses, the amounts distributed as shareholders' profits or placed on reserve, and the total sums paid as compensation, including legal and medical expenses in connection there-

    TABLE showing amount of Employers' Liability Insurance Business in the United Kingdom during the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 as shown in the Annual Returns published by the Board of Trade.

    ——

    Reserves at beginning of the year.

    Premiums.

    Interest and Dividends.

    Payments under policies (including legal and medical expenses incurred in settling claims).

    Unexpired risks.

    Estimated liability for Outstanding Claims.

    Additional Reserve.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1920

    …

    …

    2,634,356

    2,304,285

    855,429

    8,851,607

    245,215

    2,980,755

    1921

    …

    …

    3,667,660

    2,617,191

    803,137

    7,519,830

    204,452

    2,903,991

    1922

    …

    …

    3,137,166

    2,677,627

    950,135

    5,688,895

    201,762

    2,873,145

    with; and whether it is the intention of the Government to take the employers' premiums in future?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I shall be pleased to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the information asked for, except for the year 1923, the figures for which are not yet available. I assume that the particulars are desired in respect of insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Acts as well as under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880. As regards the last part of the question, a State system of workmen's compensation insurance is not at present in contemplation.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is the case that only about one-third of the amount paid in premiums reaches the victims of industrial accidents?
    Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Is the Home Secretary not aware that there are many organisations for mutual contracting out of these liabilities, showing that contracting out can save the insured people a tremendous amount of money, and will he consider that on Friday week?
    Following is the information referred to:

    SUDAN (CORRESPONDENCE).
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to lay before Parliament the complete correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Egypt upon the question of the Sudan?
    Mr. CLYNES: The reply is in the negative. As the hon. Member for York was informed on the 23rd June, it is undesirable that the discussions which the Prime Minister hopes to have with Zaghloul Pasha should be prejudiced in any way by premature statements on any of the points under negotiation.

    CIVIL AIR TRAFFIC (GERMANY).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the stoppage or threatened stoppage of civil air traffic into Germany by the German Government; what are the grounds for this; and what is the attitude of the British Government upon this question?
    Mr. LEACH: The German Government recently represented that they would not be prepared to renew, after 30th June, their permission for the flight over German territory of aircraft of Imperial Airways, Limited, which were not "civil" aircraft within the meaning of the Regulations (known as the "Nine Rules") imposed an Germany by the Allied Powers to differentiate between "civil" and "military" aircraft. As the outcome of conversations on the question, however, the German Government have now agreed to renew for a further period of three months from 30th June the facilities which they had previously accorded for the operation of British air services over German territory.
    Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that at the end of three months they will again prohibit flying over Germany
    Mr. LEACH: The matter will certainly come up again before the expiry of the three months. What will happen then, it is not possible to prophesy.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the trouble that, under the Treaty,
    2454
    we are imposing Regulations on Germany which prevent the development of her civil aviation. Would it not be better to get that modified so that our air companies could operate without fear of stoppage all the time?
    Mr. LEACH: That is exactly what we are trying to do.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Do these facilities commence at once?
    Mr. LEACH: It is actually in operation now.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    WORTHY DOWN AERODROME (BOMBING AEROPLANES).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what number of bombing aeroplanes it is proposed to maintain at the Worthy Down aerodrome; what is the bomb-carrying capacity of these aeroplanes; and are these bombing aeroplanes intended for offensive or defensive action?
    Mr. LEACH: The answer to the first part of the question is that the number and type of machines to be maintained at Worthy Down are not yet decided. The second and third parts of the question therefore do not arise, but it can be assumed that the functions of any squadrons maintained at that aerodrome will be determined entirely by the necessities of the air defence of this country.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of Napoleon's maxim that the best defence is offence?

    POISON GAS.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Royal Air Force has in stock aerial bombs filled, or intended to be filled, with poison gas?
    Major COLFOX: May I ask you, Sir, whether it is in the public interest to publish to the world at large the details of our armaments?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter entirely for the Minister, and not for me.
    Mr. LEACH: The Royal Air Force has no stock of aerial bombs filled, or intended to be filled, with poison gas.

    RECRUITS (BOYS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of boys under 17 who have been recruited into the Royal Air Force for the six months ending 30th June, 1924; and whether any of these boys are being, or will be, trained for service on bombing aeroplanes?
    Mr. LEACH: The answer to the first part of the question is that 645 boys of the age of 17, or under at date of attestation, were recruited for the Royal Air Force during the period referred to, but 14 of these have since been discharged. In reply to the second part of the question, none of these boys are under training as pilots, and it is impossible to foresee whether any, and if so, how many, will eventually be employed for aerial work in bombing squadrons.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How many chaplains are there for the instruction of these boys?
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: When these boys reach the stage of pilots are they instructed in the art of throwing leaflets?

    AIR FORCE PAGEANT.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air for what object the Royal Air Force pageant is held annually; and is he satisfied that this object is achieved?
    Mr. LEACH: The first and primary object of the pageant is to hold for the Royal Air Force what has been found necessary in all Services—an annual inspection and review—as a means, of ascertaining the degree of efficiency that is being maintained and as a test of individual and collective skill. In this respect this pageant corresponds somewhat to the reviews which take place in the other Services at Spithead and Aldershot. The second object is to allow the greatest possible number of the population of this Empire to witness the display and thus to be enabled to see for themselves the functions of the Royal Air Force. Thirdly, it is a means of raising charitable funds for this new Service. For 1923,£5,247 was thus handed over. If the Royal Air Force Pageant ever ceased to be a "draw" near London, it would then be taken to Salisbury Plain or some other suitable spot, where it would be held annually for the objects I have named.

    AIR OPERATIONS (IRAQ AND INDIA).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the name of the locality from which a raid took place into the Iraq territory, resulting in the death of 146 men and 127 women and children, and in the course of which all male prisoners and wounded, both men and boys, were put to death; whether he can tell the House the causes which led to this outbreak; whether these raiding tribes are among those who were bombed on any of the five occasions on which bombing has taken place during the past five months; and will he state the date when the above-mentioned disturbance, causing so great a loss of life, took place?
    Mr. LEACH: The locality referred to is a desert area lying about 130 miles southwest of Djaliba, which is a railway station 76 miles west of Basra. The raid, which took place on 14th March, can only be attributed partly to the natural turbulence of the tribes and partly to the desire for loot. The particular tribe responsible for the raid has not been bombed at any time.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it 14th March this year?
    Mr. LEACH: Yes.
    Captain BERKELEY: Did not the hon. Gentleman inform the House the other day that when these bombing machines were employed no casualties resulted, and that they dropped tracts and not bombs?
    Mr. LEACH: I said that the result of our operations this year, since this Government came into office, had not resulted in any casualties.
    Captain BERKELEY: Does not the hon. Gentleman now inform the House that this raid took place in March of this year, since the Government came into office?
    Mr. AYLES: Is this one of the methods adopted by the Government for demilitarising the mind of the people of Great Britain?
    Miss LAWRENCE: Can the hon. Member say whether these casualties were inflicted by one tribe on another or by His Majesty's Forces?
    Mr. LEACH: The casualties referred to took place in a raid which had no relationship to air raids. The raids referred to are tribal raids which we are seeking to bring to an end.
    Sir C. YATE: These men were killed by the raiders.
    Mr. LEACH: Yes.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that if it had not been for the raid many more people would have been killed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Some questions do not allow of an answer.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is able to state the number of dwelling places destroyed by bombing on the five occasions when bombing took place in Iraq during the past five months; what number of sheep and cattle were destroyed; and the value of the grazing lands which were also bombed?
    Mr. LEACH: It is not possible to state the number of buildings destroyed by bombing in Iraq during the period covered by the question, but the chief occasion on which material damage was effected was in the course of punitive air action against Shaikh Mahmoud's headquarters, when several houses and a large tobacco store were destroyed by fire. As regards the second and third parts of the question, no figures are ascertainable, but the reports received indicate that as a result of the issue of warnings, livestock are often removed by the tribesmen from the area affected. I would point out that the objects of air action in such cases are largely secured, not by the infliction of casualties, but by making the tribesmen concerned realise that the Government of their country has means of reaching those who offer armed defiance to its authority.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Haw is it that, if it is impossible to tell what material damage has been done, it is possible for the airmen to say that no one suffered injury by their bombing?
    Mr. LEACH: I can only speak from the information in our possession.
    Sir C. YATE: Is it the case that no punishment whatever was inflicted on the raiders who killed these 146 men?
    Lieut.-Commander KEN-WORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether the Royal Air Force has been in action, since the present Government took office, in any dependencies or mandated territories other than Iraq; and, if so, what were the circumstances;
    (2) on how many occasions the Royal Air Force has been in action since the present Government took office, otherwise than in Iraq; what were the occasions; and whether bombs were dropped or machine guns brought into action, and against what objectives?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the first question is intended and does refer to British territory, and the second question to territories other than British?
    Mr. LEACH: The Royal Air Force has been in action, outside Iraq, on two occasions since the present Government took office, on both occasions on the North-West Frontier of India. The first was at Razmak, on 19th April, 1924, when an aeroplane directed the fire of a section of howitzers against a village, which was shelled in reprisal for the sniping of patrols in the neighbourhood. The second was on 25th and 28th May, when bombs and machine guns were used against two villages of the Mahsuds, who had committed several serious outrages and had been warned that if they did not comply with certain terms, including the return of Hindus kidnapped and sold and the surrender of rifles, air or other action would be taken against them. Three out of four sections of the Mahsuds complied with these terms; the fourth failed to do so, and were consequently attacked.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When these villages were bombed with machine guns, was any warning given so, that non-combatants and children could be removed?
    Mr. LEACH: That is always done.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was it done in this case?
    Mr. LEACH: Yes.
    Viscount CURZON: Has it not always been one of the chief points of Liberal policy to do away with slavery?

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. BAKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the anxiety which has been created by the fear that he may propose to make his scheme of pensions for widows with dependent children part of a general insurance scheme; and whether, seeing that pensions are required for widows whose husbands were not covered by the national health and unemployment schemes, he will give an assurance that any proposals to be submitted to the House shall be on a non-contributory basis?
    Mr. GRAHAM: As reference to the statements of my right hon. Friend will show, the investigations of the Government have not yet reached a stage at which I can make any statement in reply to my hon. Friend's question.

  INCOME TAX.

    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS,
    Mr. AYLESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that a private person conducting two businesses can, for the purposes of Income Tax, set off the losses of the one against the profits of the other, he can see his way to introduce legislation to consolidate the powers and funds of corporations, acting in their various capacities, so that corporations may be able to set off any losses of their undertakings acting as urban sanitary authorities against the profits of their undertakings acting as municipal corporations, or vice versa, and so be placed on the same basis as private persons and companies?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I regret that my right hon. Friend cannot undertake at the present late stage of the Finance Bill proceedings to examine this very technical matter with a view to immediate introduction of legislation upon it.

    HOUSE REPAIRS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a recent decision in the King's Bench Division whereby it has been stated that the 25 per cent. additional rent payable to landlords carrying out repairs in houses, under the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, is a part of
    2460
    the rent, and therefore to be included in the assessment to Income Tax under Schedule A; and whether, seeing that such an increase was intended as an indemnity against a possible increase in the cost of repairs, the Government is prepared to amend the law to remove this anomaly?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am aware of the decision to which the hon. Member refers, but I cannot agree that it involves any anomaly. The annual value of a property for the purposes of assessment to Income Tax (Schedule A) is, broadly speaking, the annual rent which is or would be paid for the property under an ordinary tenancy, and the law makes provision whereby the owner can obtain not merely the flat-rate deductions for repairs granted in all cases in which the landlord covenants to repair, but also any further appropriate allowance in respect of expenditure on repairs and maintenance upon a five-year average, so that, in the result, he will ultimately bear tax on no more than the income which he enjoys.

    NATIONAL UNION OF GENERAL WORKERS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the National Union of General Workers has had a pension fund in existence for some years for its officials and that previously Income Tax rebate has been allowed on the premiums; whether the assessors of taxes are now refusing such rebate; and whether he will take action in the matter?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am causing inquiry to be made into this case and will communicate the results to my hon. Friend in due course.

    ARREARS.
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of arrears of Income Tax and Super-tax, respectively, collected since 1st April to 30th June, 1924?
    Mr. GRAHAM: As the answer is long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer
    I regret that this information is not available, as it is not possible, without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour, to divide the receipts of Income Tax and Super-tax since the 1st April last between payments of arrears

    2461
    and payments in respect of tax actually demanded for the first time since that date.
    The estimated arrears at the 1st April and 1st July, 1924, respectively, were as follows:

    Income Tax.

    Super-tax.

    £

    £

    1st April, 1924

    39,628,000

    25,972,000

    1st July, 1924

    15,000,000

    16,000,000

    These figures are not, however, strictly comparable, as the arrears at the later date include considerable sums which have become legally payable and were actually demanded of the taxpayer since the earlier date.

    REPAYMENTS (MONEY ORDERS).
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether complaints have been brought to his notice of the inconvenience caused to small investors by the discontinuance of the practice of repaying Income Tax by Post Office money orders; what were the reasons for the discontinuance; and whether, in the case of repayments under £10, the former practice could be resumed?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Though I would gladly inquire into any particular case which the hon. Member has in mind, I understand that complaints upon this matter have been exceedingly rare. For the rest I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Carlisle on the 27th February last. I am sending him a copy of that reply.

    DEDUCTIONS AT SOURCE (REPAYMENTS).
    Lord EUSTACE PERCYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the delay which occurs in dealing with claims for return of Income Tax deducted at source, even in the case of persons with fixed incomes who submit identical claims every year; and whether he can take any steps to accelerate the working of his Department in such cases?
    Mr. GRAHAM: As a result of improvements in the machinery of repayment introduced in the last three years the work has been very materially accelerated, and improvements continue to be effected. I will gladly cause inquiry to be made into any case the Noble Lord has in mind in
    2462
    which there has been undue delay in making repayment, but he may rest assured that the Board of Inland Revenue and their officers are dealing expeditiously with the great mass of the claims received.

    TRADE FACILITIES ACT (SHIPBUILDING GUARANTEES).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount guaranteed since November, 1923, under the Trade Facilities Act for shipbuilding in England and Scotland, respectively, and for the purchase of plant and material for the construction of vessels at Belfast?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The figures are as follow:—

    £

    For shipbuilding in England

    262,500

    For shipbuilding in Scotland

    4,118,000

    For the purchase in Great Britain of plant and material for construction of vessels at Belfast

    1,450,000

    Total

    5,830,500

    These guarantees were for ships other than ordinary tramp steamers or involving some special circumstances.
    These sums are in addition to £7,089,000 guaranteed before November, 1923.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Have any instructions been given to the Advisory Committee to keep within the amount that my hon. Friend suggested when we debated this matter on the Bill'? He gave an undertaking that the amount would be kept within certain limits
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it the considered policy of the Government and of the Advisory Committee to refuse to increase this sum or to make any grants for tramp steamers, in addition to the steamers in respect of which grants have already been made?
    Mr. GRAHAM: There is no question of having reached the limit of the amount available for guarantee. There is still an ample margin on which to work, and it is for the Committee to say whether further shipbuilding guarantees are to be given. With regard to the second supplementary question, the Treasury cannot directly advise the Committee,

    2463
    but I have no hesitation in saying that, in any event, even if far more shipping guarantees were given, they would still fall far short of the figure mentioned in debate here.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Are we to understand that the undertaking given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been conveyed as a request to the Advisory Committee?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes. The position was that the Advisory Committee had necessarily to take into account the views expressed by hon. Members in this House, but they have also to use their discretion in the matter.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it a fact that the Advisory Committee have refused recently to grant any sums of money towards the buildings of new ships, with particular relation to tramp steamers?
    Sir GRATTAN DOYLE.: If it is a sound policy to give guarantees in other directions, why is it not a sound policy to give guarantees in regard to shipbuilding?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is true that the Advisory Committee has been against the building of additional tramp steamers, but it is entirely wrong to say that additional guarantees for shipping have not been given. Since the present Government has been in office, approximately £6,000,000 have been so guaranteed.

    NATIONAL DEBT (LORD COLWYN'S COMMITTEE).
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the evidence given before Lord Colwyn's Committee will be made available to Members of this House?
    Mr. GRAHAM: In accordance with the usual practice, this will be a matter for consideration when the Committee present their Report.

    ROYAL MINT (RUSSIAN COINAGE).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many men are at present working overtime at the Royal Mint on the contract for Russian coinage?
    Mr. GRAHAM: From six to 12 men are employed on overtime, in this connection in adapting and setting up new machinery. This work must necessarily be done outside the ordinary hours of the Mint.
    Mr. MORRISON: Is it not a fact that a number of men who were recently discharged from Woolwich Arsenal were employed in the making of medals and coins? Cannot these men be employed on this work?
    Mr. GRAHAM: In this case it is highly skilled work, and, unfortunately, unless it is taken after hours it interferes with the current operations in the Mint.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What is the amount of new capital which the Government have invested in the Mint for this purpose?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that I could not answer that question without notice. I do not know of any new capital. I have understood that this is an ordinary part of the regular work of the Mint, or at all events work which has been done for a considerable time.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his answer to the supplementary question with the policy which the Government is pursuing elsewhere of degrading skilled men in Government establishments to unskilled work?

  REPARATIONS.

    PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO PARIS.
    Mr. BALDWIN(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he had any communication to make to the House on his return from Paris?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): An unfortunate situation having arisen in Paris, which threatened to destroy the work done to arrange for an Inter-Allied Conference on the application of the Experts' Report, I went to Paris to try to remove it.
    His Majesty's Government have taken the view that the most supreme efforts should be made to put the Experts' Report into operation without delay, and the urgency to-day has been much increased by the time required for the

    2465
    elections and changes of Governments on the Continent, when no negotiations could be conducted.
    It is essential that the Inter-Allied Conference fixed for the 16th instant should be held, as many details have to be settled preparatory to carrying out the Report, and some of them will require thorough discussion by Treasury and legal experts, and agreements upon them will not always be easy to make. French opinion is unwilling to allow the Experts' Report to be regarded as a substitute for provisions of the Versailles Treaty, but willing to accept, it as a new and better way of dealing with reparations On the other hand, the Experts' Report has, as its essential foundation, the raising of a £40,000,000 loan, and that cannot be done unless those who are willing to invest have some security that, their investments will not be destroyed by political or military action on the part of Governments, either Allied or German.
    I found when I got to Paris that, in view of the situation which had arisen, I had to discuss this matter beyond where it had been left at the previous conversations, and try to effect a preliminary agreement with the French Government upon it. His Majesty's Government would not waive its expressed views upon the work and powers of the Reparation Commission as hitherto exercised, but it could agree not to try and settle them as a preliminary to putting the Experts' Report into operation. At the same time it could riot pretend that investors would be forthcoming so long as the political and economic security which the German State as a going concern offered to investors could he destroyed by action similar to that which took place last year.
    We therefore agreed, first of all, to try and add to the Reparations Committee, when it is dealing with defalcation under the Experts' Report, an American member who would look after the interests of the investors, or, failing that, to use the services of the American who will be the Reparations Agent-General. The view of the British Government is that this gentleman should act as arbitrator in the event of a failure to get a unanimous decision from the Reparations Commission, but the French Government wished time to consider this and leave a final decision on the point to the London Con-
    2466
    ference. To that we finally agreed, and in the meantime we shall consult financial opinion on the subject. Unless this is settled to the satisfaction of the investors, no loans will be forthcoming.
    The French Government further desired to associate the question of Inter-Allied debts with the Experts' Report. To that we could not agree. I had warned M. Herriot at Chequers that the British Government could not allow this matter to drag on indefinitely, and I had told him that I proposed to ask the Treasury to take up the matter at the point where it was left by Lord Curzon's Note of the 11th of August last. I had proposed further that it might be desirable that an official of the French Treasury should come here to discuss the question in a preliminary way with our officials. It has been agreed that this should be done, and that in negotiating a settlement account shall be taken of "all considerations."
    Further, the French Government desires to keep the question of national security alive. His Majesty's Government made it definitely clear that no proposal of the nature of a military pact could be entertained, but repeated its desire to continue conversations on the subject, especially as regards arrangements through the League of Nations, disarmament conferences, or by other acceptable means.
    I must add that the purpose of the joint statement agreed to in Paris was to make a conference on the 16th instant possible, that details will be settled there with the assistance of the proper experts, that owing to the limited purpose we had in view, and the inadequate time at our disposal, various important matters which must be settled at the Conference, when the advice requisite will be available, are not referred to.
    I would like to add a personal note expressing my gratitude for the very cordial way in which I as the representative of this country was received by the leaders of all parties during my short stay in Paris.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of adding an American representative to the Reparation Committee. I presume that what was meant was the Reparation Commission, and not any new body?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; I meant the Reparation Commission.
    Sir F. WISE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he discussed it Paris the total amount of reparation to be paid, or whether the amount of £6,600,000,000 in the pact of 1921 is still to stand?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, I did not discuss that question. I rigidly refused to go outside the provisions of the Dawes Report.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss the question of the effect of the acceptance of the Dawes Report upon the default declared by the Reparation Commission? In other words, will the acceptance of the Dawes Report cancel that declaration of default?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no, that is a totally different subject.
    Mr. PRINGLE: No.
    The PRIME MINISTER: With all due respect, it is. The question which we have to settle now—we must be very careful not to allow it to get mixed up with other issues—is, Are we, or are we not, to put the Dawes Report into operation, after full agreement among ourselves and with the concurrence of Germany?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir EDWARD GRIGG: Was the joint statement issued in Paris yesterday agreed in English as well as in French? The English versions apparently differ. Will the official text be laid on the Table of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I had better answer the last part of the question. The official text will be laid on the Table of the House. I am not sure whether it is of any interest to the House, but I may state that, in order to get a very rough translation, we had to keep the train waiting half an hour for us. We have an official text, and that will be very carefully compared with all the translations. We understood the situation, and pledged ourselves that there should be no question at all about any first translation.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Conference on the 16th is only an Allied Conference, with, possibly, an American representative. If, as we hope,
    2468
    an agreement is reached, will the German representative be invited to the same Conference in London, or will a fresh Conference be convened?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That will have to be discussed and settled at the Conference.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I would like to ask one question on a matter which the Prime Minister's statement has not made clear. In the published correspondence in the recent White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman reiterated that, in his judgment, the Dawes Report was outside the Versailles Treaty, and that, consequently, questions of default could not be decided by the Reparation Commission. Do I understand from him now that the attitude taken up by himself at Chequers is definitely withdrawn?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, it has not been definitely withdrawn. The matter has been referred for judgment to the legal experts of both countries, and that will be presented to us at the Inter-Allied Conference next week, and the whole matter will be considered in the light of that judgment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: Would the Lord Privy Seal kindly state what business is to be taken next week?
Mr. CLYNES: The business will be:
Monday: Supply, Foreign Office Vote.
Tuesday: Finance Bill, Report.
Wednesday and Thursday Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, Committee.
Friday: Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, Report and Third Reading.
On Thursday the Government propose to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to advance some of the minor Measures on the Paper, an announcement as to which will be made later.
Mr. PRINGLE: Is it intended to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule for the Housing Bill?
Mr. CLYNES: That is not our intention at present.
Mr. STURROCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to how long the Sudan debate is likely to take to-day, and how long we shall be allowed for discussion of the question of claims for damage done by the enemy?
Mr. CLYNES: I think the Sudan debate could be concluded at about 8.15. I have, however, no power officially to determine the fact.
Mr. H. H. SPENCER: May I ask a question—it is causing very great anxiety in some parts of the country—as to the progress of the Bill dealing with Old Ago Pensions?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should attend to the business of the House. The Bill to which he refers is fixed for to-morrow.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. PERRY(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the recent late Sittings of Parliament and the physical strain imposed on Members of the House, resulting in the recent incident of a Member's serious collapse, and having regard to the present position of parties in the House, under which the difficulty of minority Government may be experienced by any party in the next few years, he will consider the desirability of consulting all parties with a view to securing the necessary business of Parliament being arranged, so that the Sittings shall not be continued after midnight?
Mr. CLYNES: The Government regret that on one or two occasions they have had to ask the House to sit all night, and they would welcome any workable arrangement by which this course could be avoided. They do not think, however, that the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion would be profitable at the present time, especially as the Committee dealing with the Sittings of the House is on the point of making its Report.
Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House, for the information, a statement showing the number of occasions when the House has sat after eleven o'clock, and the number of hours
2470
during which it has sat, in the Sessions of the last 10 years? I think that the present House has got off very easily.
Mr. CLYNES: I will consider that suggestion. The information would be very interesting, but, at the same time, I hope that it will not prevent the growth of a new point of view on the matter.
Mr. W. THORNE: Have the Government seriously considered the advisability of meeting earlier, and, if not, will my right hon. Friend consult all parties with a view of meeting very much earlier and terminating the proceedings earlier at night?
Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is it not the opinion of the Government that the only way in which this question can be satisfactorily settled is by the introduction and passage of a general scheme of devolution of business?
Mr. SPEAKER: I allowed this question to be put, but it cannot now be debated.
Mr. PERRY: May I have permission to raise it on the Adjournment at the first opportunity?

BILLS PRESENTED.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL,
  "to grant maney for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund; and for other purposes relating to local loans," presented by Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 199.]
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL,
  "to amend the Law with respect to Customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM; and to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to he printed. [No. 200.]

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. James Brown to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Summer Time Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Commitee B: Mr. Alden.

    STANDING COMMITTEE C.
    Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C: Sir Charles Oman.
    Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Summer Time Bill): Duchess of Atholl, Dr. Chapple, Major Colfox, Sir Martin Conway, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Benjamin Gardner, Mr. Secretary Henderson, Mr. Pethiek-Lawrence, Mr. Rea, Sir Philip Sassoon, Mr. Hope Simpson, Sir Victor Warrender, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Robert Wilson, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

    CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
    Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to the Chairmen's Panel: Mr. Alden.

    STANDING COMMITTEE D.
    Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Mr. Bromfield and Colonel Penry Williams; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Leif Jones and Mr. Rose.
    Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Bill [Lords]) Mr. Becker: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Clarry.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Small Debt (Scotland) Bill,
Board of Education Scheme (Female
Orphan Asylum, etc.) Confirmation Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Water) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to town planning in Scotland." [Town Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1924–25.
      CLASS II.

        FOREIGN OFFICE.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £92,594, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including the News Department."—[Note: £85,000 has been voted on account.]
        4.0 P.M.
        Earl WINTERTON: I rise to deal with a question which once was the subject of the fiercest controversy and recrimination in this House, and endangered the life of a British Government. Moreover, on at least one occasion it brought us to the verge of war with our great Ally across the Channel. Although, happly, those days are long removed, and we can discuss this question this afternoon in an atmosphere, I hope almost of unanimity, still it is the fact that the question of the Sudan is likely to become one which will require more attention from this Committee and from the House than has been the case in the immediate past. I am raising the question this afternoon merely to make clear the attitude of those who sit on this side of the House and to support what I believe to be the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Sudan.
        In order to make my case, it is necessary to trouble the Committee, though I hope for only a brief time, with a short historical survey of the conditions in the Sudan prior to the occupation, because upon those conditions and upon that period must depend and must turn so much of the controversy of to-day. Modern Sudanese history, or Sudanese history with which I am at any rate concerned this afternoon, starts with the action of the great Mohammed Ali, ruler of Egypt at the beginning of the last
        2504
        century. Mohammed Ali, who is still regarded by living Egyptians as the embodiment of nationalistic aspirations, was one of those men occasionally to be met with in the East who combine all the subtlety of the East with the strength of will and quickness of decision of the West. He was undoubtedly the greatest leader that Egypt has at any rate seen within historical times, and has probably ever seen. About the year 1818 Mohammed Ali turned his eyes, as the eyes of his predecessors had been turned for 100 and indeed 1,000 years, southwards for slaves and ivory. The historical Egyptian policy was to look to the lands of the South for slaves and ivory with which to trade. As the result, Mohammed Ali, whose forces in that part of the world were invincible, conquered the Sudan in 1819, and there followed on his conquest a period of 60 years of terrible oppression, peculation, and tyranny.
        During those 60 years, the slave trade was at times openly supported by the Turko-Egyptian Government of the Sudan with open and cynical brutality, and at other times it was camouflaged, but the trade was always there, and the effects of those years of rule on the Sudan were probably as deplorable as any period of similar rule in any part of the world, certainly within the last 200 years. It may be worth quoting the opinion of a great Englishman who travelled in that country, and whose name will ever be honourably associated with Sudanese problems of the middle and end of last century. Sir Samuel Baker, in 1870, wrote:
        "I observed that there seemed a frightful change in the features of the country between Berber and the Capital since my former visit. The rich soil on the banks of the river, which had a few years since been highly cultivated, was abandoned. There was not a dog to howl for a lost master. Industry had vanished; oppression had driven the inhabitants from the soil."
        Speaking a little later of the South of the Sudan, he said:
        "The entire country was leased out to piratical slave hunters under the name of traders by the Khartoum Government."
        It is a matter of history and certainly no longer of controversy that the efforts of General Gordon, once attacked by some of the political ancestors of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, to suppress the slave trade and to get the

        2505
        Turko-Egyptian Government in the Sudan and the Egyptian authorities at Cairo to take a more humane view of the rights of government, though unsuccessful, were strenuous and sincere from the first. I ought to add this in in justice to General Gordon's memory; and, when one reads some of the statements that were made by members of the then Liberal party about Gordon, I think it is necessary even at this long period of time to make some reference to it. I do not want to introduce a note of controversy, but they made every effort to show that his word could not be depended upon.
        Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: The Noble Lord is quite inaccurate.
        Earl WINTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that I am inaccurate, but he had really better read "Hansard" of that time.
        Captain BENN: Will the Noble Lord quote?
        Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the Debates of that time, he will see that I am justified.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Neither the Noble Lord nor myself were present at those Debates, but I think he will admit that nobody attacked Gordon in his character. He was recognised as a man of great liberalism of mind, with the highest idealism, and was held in the greatest honour. The Liberal party attacked the policy.
        Earl WINTERTON: That is not the point of Order which I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to raise, and I should not have given way to him for such a very inadequate reason. I am not talking of what was done, although I, for one, should have every justification for attacking what was done by Mr. Gladstone and his Government in relation to General Gordon. I am attacking the references to him that were made in speeches at the time—those references can be found by a search through Hansard—in which he was represented, at any rate in some quarters among the then Members of this House, as a man whose word could not be depended upon. I am rather surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen should stress this matter of the attitude of the Liberal party towards General Gordon. It was the prime cause of
        2506
        bringing one of their Governments crashing to the ground, and in my opinion was one of the principal causes why for such a long time afterwards the Liberal party wore not entrusted by the people with an adequate majority for the government of this country.
        Let me, however, leave that part of the question, and go on. It was undoubtedly the fact that the Englishmen who worked under the Turko-Egyptian Government in the Sudan at that time did all that they could to improve conditions, but unfortunately they met with very little success. Finally came the appalling catastrophe of the Mahdist revolt. I do not think there is any question as to what were the main reasons for that revolt. It was not merely a fanatical outburst of Islamic extremism, because governors and governed were Mohammedan people. It was unquestionably—here there will be no difference of opinion—a Sudan national rising against the gross misgovernment of the Sudan by Egypt, and the latter's exploitation of the slave trade. I am glad to have the assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite in that matter. I am most anxious that it should go out from this House that we are unanimous on this question, and I believe, so far as those above the Gangway opposite and on this side of the House are concerned, there is unanimity of opinion. As supporting what I have said, it is necessary to make one very short quotation from a White Paper of that time, which puts very clearly and very shortly what the situation then was. Lord Dufferin, in a dispatch of 14th December, 1883, to Lord Granville said:
        "The recent disturbances were mainly due to the misgovernment and cruel exactions of the local Egyptian authorities at Khartum, and that, whatever might be the pretensions of the Mahdi to a divine mission, his chief strength was derived from the despair and misery of the native population."
        That statement was made at the time, and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, was never challenged in this House. Lord Cromer, of the same time, said:
        "The power gained by semi-civilised skill "—
        and he is referring to the Turko-Egyptian Government——
        "over the wild tribes had been grossly misused; slave-hunting Pashas and corrupt and extortionate tax-collectors had rendered the name of Egypt hateful to the people."

        2507
        So much for the past. I now come to the most important question which I think we have to discuss to-day in connection with the Sudan, and that is the cry which has gone forth from some quarters in Egypt of "Sudan for the Egyptians" I am going to say as little as possible unfriendly to the Egyptian people or the Egyptian Government, but I must start by observing that. I think that Egyptian politicians hope that these inconvenient facts which I have just cited may be concealed in the swish and swirl of present-day events. So far as this country is concerned, and I think I speak for both sides, we have not forgotten those events prior to the Mahdist rising and the occupation. Personally, and again I think I speak for the great majority of the Committee, I have no quarrel with the Egyptian people. I think there are to be found in the Egyptian masses one of the most patient, honest and industrious nations in the world, with whom one would wish to see this country on good terms. They are people who have brought the art of peasant cultivation to a very high standard and whose record is one of patient industry and development. I am compelled to distinguish in this respect between the masses and what I may without offence describe as the Pasha class in Egypt—a half alien and in some cases wholly unscrupulous class. As to the majority of the Pasha class their immediate ancestors came from other parts of Asia or Europe, and in addition I am afraid I must say that their aspirations, if carried to a logical conclusion, would hardly suit either the convenience or the prosperity of the Fellaheen, who constitute the great majority of the masses.
        I am concerned with the people of Egypt as a whole, and I assert with confidence that the cry "the Sudan for Egypt" is not a cry of the common people or of the great mass of the people in Egypt. There are amongst them far too many memories of conscripted fathers and grandfathers who, in the 60's and 70's of last century, died in agony amid its cruel rocks and sand. I was nine or ten years old when I was in Egypt in 1892, and I remember when going up the Nile hearing the frightful lamentations and wailings of women and children in the villages on the banks of
        2508
        the river as their husbands, fathers and brothers were taken away to be conscripted for the army. I remember also being told that those lamentations went back to the awful days of the Turco-Egyptian regime in the Sudan, when thousands and even millions of Egyptians were taken away from their villages. It impressed my youthful mind very much indeed. The truth is it has always been difficult and it certainly will not be less difficult under a purely Egyptian administration of the Sudan to induce Egyptians to serve in the Sudan. I say it has always been difficult and it is difficult to-day, but it certainly would not be easier if the British went away. While there might possibly be more backsheesh to be obtained under these conditions there would also be more beatings. One of the principal reasons why that is so is this. The Sudan and Egypt are two countries which are inhabited by races which are mutually antipathetic to each other. If one takes a tour right down the long stretches of the White Nile to the borders of Abyssinia the contrast between the cultivated lands of Egypt and those wild countries which stretch into the equatorial provinces is very great indeed. I remember being struck in 1903, 10 years after the re-occupation by the British of Egypt, by the fact that in the villages which the negroid tribes inhabit you saw very few middle-aged men, although there are plenty of young and old men. The middle-aged men apparently had all been carried off as slaves in the days of Mahdist oppression, or in the days of the Turco-Egyptian rule before the Madhist revolt. That was a very striking and significant fact. I could not help, in passing through the country, feeling proud that this country has done what it has done in the Sudan for an essentially kindly people who are capable, under instruction and under proper government, of perhaps making a great achievement in the world. It was very satisfactory to see the peace they enjoyed contrasted with the terrible conditions they had gone through.
        Now I come to the working agreement which at present exists between this country and Egypt for the government of the Sudan. In regard to that I would like to make my last quotation. It is a quotation from the Milner Report, and I would call the Committee's attention to the fact that that Report was

        2509
        unanimously signed by hon. Members of this House and of the other House, representative of all parties, and it has frequently been quoted by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite in justification of this or that part of the policy they were putting forward. I hope they will accept the quotation I am going to give as having an important bearing on the controversy which has arisen in the present summer arising out of statements by Zaghloul Pasha and of the Noble Lord in the other place. The date is 1919, and the Milner Report said of the situation in the Sudan:
        "Since the conquest of the country by British and Egyptian forces under British leadership in 1896 and 1898, the government of the Sudan which after the Convention of 1899 took the form of an Anglo-Egyptian Protectorate has been virtually in British hands. The Governor-General, though appointed by the Sultan of Egypt, is nominated by the British Government and all the Governors of Provinces and the principal officials are British. Under this system of government progress of the Sudan in all respects, material and moral, has been remarkable. When full allowance is made for the simplicity of the problem by the introduction of the first principles of orderly and civilised government among a very primitive people, the great success actually achieved during the long Governor-Generalship of Sir R. Wingate is one of the brightest pages in the history of British rule over backward races. The present administration is popular in the Sudan and with few exceptions peaceful and progressive conditions prevail throughout the country."
        That is a Report signed by representatives of all parties in Parliament, and I should imagine it was largely based on notes prepared by an hon. Member of this House who was a member of the party opposite—General Thomas—who paid a visit to the Sudan in order to see what was going on. That working agreement under which the Government of the Sudan existed in 1898 had been most successful until recently, but I am afraid it is beginning to fail. I would invite the attention of the Prime Minister to a fact which I think he will not doubt, but upon which he may not care to express either agreement or disagreement. I say it has begun to fail because we have, for reasons which I do not propose to go into this afternoon, no longer a willing partner in the Egyptian Government, in the administration. We are working with a very unwilling partner. An hon. Member behind me says we always have done so, but I do not think
        2510
        that that statement does quite full justice to the case. There may or may not have been objections taken by individual Egyptians to the position in the past, but the situation to-day is different. There is an active and open opposition in some official quarters in Cairo to the joint administration of the Sudan. That is a new situation altogether. A cynic might observe this, that for the first time the Egyptians have got control of the particular Departments with which it is difficult for the administration of the Sudan to work. I merely state the fact, however. I want to suggest to the Government that they should take up this attitude with the Government of Egypt. Either you must consent to work with us in the Sudan as hitherto in the common task of developing its economic resources and preparing its people for the constitutional development which must eventually by theirs, or you must leave us to do the work alone after proper adjustment c our respective financial commitments, and with adequate safeguard for that Nile water which is the very life blood of Egypt. I trust there will be no dissentient voice when I say that Egypt can never be allowed to annex the Sudan in the sense that that term is used by some otherwise responsible Egyptian politicians and statesmen to-day. It would be completely contrary to every modern principle of self-determination and the development of backward races if that were done. It would be giving to one country having no ethnological relation, it would be giving to an alien country powers of rule against the wishes of 99 per cent of the people of the country.
        I should like on this point to say it is a complete mistake to suppose, as some seem to think, that nothing has been done to encourage the Sudanese to govern themselves and to develop their own institutions. As shown in the Governor-General's Report for the last three or four years the object of the Sudan Government has been increasingly to leave the administration as far as possible in the hands of native authorities wherever they exist under the supervision of the Governor and to allow the village system of government—the tribal system—to develop along modern lines. There has been in the last four or five years a great improvement in the technical training of the young Sudanese. The Gordon College and other schools have produced skilled

        2511
        artisans of all kinds, engineers and agriculturalists, and they have recently been training medical officers. For four or five years there has been put into operation a system by which submamiers, officials of a certain type, will be recruited from the Sudanese. There has been an immense acceleration since the War of the process that has been going on all the time towards practical development among the Sudanese. I do not propose to weary the Committee with facts and figures to prove this. It is well known to all students of history. When we consider the question of the relationship of Egypt and this country respectively to the Sudanese, we have, of course, to consider one question which is of great importance, but the importance of which has perhaps been overstressed in some quarters, and that is the financial commitments of this country and Egypt respectively in the Sudan in the last 30 or 40 years. I am not going to attempt to deal with that this afternoon. It is rather the duty of the Government to go into these details, but I can assure the Committee that it would be the greatest mistake to suppose that the claims made in some quarters in Egypt on this question of financial commitments were accurate. They talk about the millions sunk by Egypt in the Government of the Sudan, but they fail to talk of the millions sunk by this country—I am not speaking of commercial investments—in order to re-conquer the Sudan and help it along the path of development which it is now so happily pursuing.
        I cull from the old musty documents of the time—to Which I will not refer further because of the effect which they seem to produce on the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)—certain interesting figures. I find from a White Paper published about 1886 that the financial commitments incurred by the British Treasury in the Sudan for the years 1882 to 1885 amounted to £13,000,000 sterling, and of course an immense amount was incurred afterwards. It is quite true there are large sums on the other side. It is quite true that the Egyptian Government provided the Budget deficits in the Sudan from the year 1898 when the occupation took place until the year 1913 when there was a surplus, but that deficit which was
        2512
        large in the first place became gradually smaller and is not as formidable a sum as is represented. There was also the expenditure by the Egyptian Government out of Egyptian finances on railways and public works and the rest in the past but there has been no such expenditure for at least 12 years. There is also of course the yearly cost to the Egyptian Treasury of the defence of the country Which may be roughly calculated at £E1,200,000. As I have endeavoured to show there are considerable set-offs and I think when you come to balance the two accounts you will not find that the actual financial debit of Egypt is as much as might be supposed.
        Before I leave this subject I should like to make one reference to the cost incurred by Egypt in connection with defence. I have just given the figure of the yearly cost to the Egyptian taxpayer of the maintenance of Egyptian troops, or rather troops of the Egyptian Army, partly Egyptian and partly Sudanese, in the Sudan, but we have to remember in this connection how great a menace the Sudan would have been to Egypt had it not been re-conquered by the joint forces of British and Egyptians—and I am afraid the term "joint forces" is rather a euphemism. It has been abundantly proved by the despatches of the time that the real onus was borne by this country and the troops of this country. You have in the Southern Sudan in its relation to Egypt the problem of the North-West Frontier of India over again. Just as in India the tribes on the lean windswept uplands look hungrily to the, fat plains of the South, the Punjab and elsewhere, so in the Sudan, virile lighting races, Arab and Negro, long for the day when they can pour like locusts into the rich Nile deltas, inhabited, as they well know, by a peaceful and unwarlike people. In each case it is the same person, never conspicuous, always in the background, who keeps them back, and that is the British private soldier. It is undoubtedly true that if it ever should happen—I myself think it will never happen—that we were entirely out of the Sudan and Egypt, the Egyptian Government would have to pay just as much, and probably more, for the defence of its frontier against the Sudanese, as it now pays for its army of occupation in the Sudan.
        All these financial matters can in my opinion be adjusted. There remains

        2513
        only the question of the Nile water. Frankly I believe that in any fresh arrangement with the Egyptian Government—and I think there will have to be a fresh arrangement—it will be necessary to give a British guarantee for the integrity of the water supply of the Egyptian people. I hope any such arrangement as that to which I refer will clear up once and for all and definitely the status of the Sudan. That is the sort of arrangement which I should like to see, but as I say it will also be necessary for the Government to guarantee the integrity of Egypt's water supply, and I am informed that part of the agitation going on in Egypt to-day is due to the fear, which the Egyptians believe to be well grounded but which we in this House believe to be ill grounded, that sooner or later the British are going to get out of the Sudan, leaving it to the Sudanese. That being so the Egyptians are afraid that a Sudanese Government, which I think in their heart of hearts they realise from a military point of view would be stronger than themselves, might, if I may use a slang term, monkey with the water. Therefore it is the duty of the British Government to make their position clear in this respect. They cannot absolve themselves of their responsibilities and I cannot but believe if the integrity of Egypt's water supply were guaranteed it would do away with a great deal of the apprehension which at present exists, and I have yet to learn that the word of the British Empire is of no value in a matter of this kind. In view of the unanimity of opinion which exists upon this matter I believe, given in that way, it would be sufficient——
        Mr. T. JOHNSTON: What about the water from Abyssinia?
        Earl WINTERTON: It is quite true that a similar arrangement will have to be made with regard to Abyssinia, but I prefer not to mention that on account of the fact that the Regent of that country is at present in England, and perhaps as a result of his visit it may be possible to settle many questions which have been outstanding for many years. I agree that it is almost a general African question, and I think the Secretary of State for the Colonies will probably agree also that it is a general African question; still it is a question susceptible of settlement, and so
        2514
        far as a guarantee is concerned I think you cannot go on without one.
        In conclusion, I submit that on moral and ethnological grounds the Egyptian Government cannot claim the annexation of the Sudan. I go further and say that the question cannot for long be left where it is, since for various reasons, the status quo is not being adequately maintained. At this point I should like to refer to a gentleman whose name is bound to come up in the course of this afternoon's Debate. The present Prime Minister of Egypt is a man of great ability and indeed genius, of whom the late Lord Cromer is reported to have said that he was the ablest and most progressive of all the young Egyptian politicians, but I think it is very necessary that he and his Government should realise the limitations and duties as well as the rights of nationality. Egypt has not yet by any means set its own house in order. It has not had time since it has enjoyed independence to set its house in order, and there is still a great deal to be done in the way of educating its own people to carry on the government of Egypt as well as it was carried on under the previous régime.
        Nothing would be more fatal, from that point of view, than for Egypt to attempt to govern by itself another great country like the Sudan, and I think Zaghloul Pasha and his Government ought to be reminded of that fact, which is the central fact of all. After all, it is absurd to talk of the annexation of the Sudan by Egypt when Egypt has only had its own independence for some four years, and has yet to show how she is going to carry out her duties in the government of her own country. That is a matter for herself, but she has also—which is a matter for all of us—to show that she is going to carry out her obligations to Europe and the Powers under the very modified control which now exists. I hope I have said nothing hostile to the Government and its policy. I am most anxious to avoid doing so. I trust the Prime Minister, who has, I understand, the advantage of a personal acquaintance with Zaghloul Pasha, and who, like myself and others, has the advantage denied to an earlier generation of politicians of having been in the country, will address himself with tact, firmness and expedition to the task of

        2515
        getting this question settled, and of having the status of the Sudan accurately and clearly defined. A few months ago I should not have made that suggestion. I should have thought it sufficient to leave the matter as it was, but in view of what I have learned since, in view of events in Egypt, in view of the speech made the other day in another place, I think the question cannot be left exactly as it was. We have to define clearly and simply the status of the Sudan, and I believe we can do so. I believe we can come to terms with the Egyptian Government on the matter, and I hope, in everything and anything we do, we shall be guided solely by this consideration, namely, the rights, present and future, of the people of the country for whom we have done so much in the last 25 years.
        Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: There were many things in the speech of the Noble Lord who has just sat down with which I feel myself in agreement, but there are also one or two points in it which I should like to mention before proceeding to the specific questions with which I propose, myself, to deal. I think I can say with certainty that the Noble Lord has correctly interpreted the general feeling of the House with regard to what the Prime Minister said a short time ago in relation to Egypt and the Sudan and that this House, for the time being, has no intention of handing over the Sudan to Egypt further than the extent to which Egypt has already got command of that country. I am not sure that the Noble Lord is right in saying that the pasha class in Egypt is largely a foreign and alien class. The modern pasha class in Egypt is, I think, really and truly an Egyptian class and those who have been supporting Zaghloul Pasha are undoubtedly Egyptian in the true sense of the word. I will not follow the Noble Lord into the historical aspect of the question as to whether the Egyptians of to-day desire the Sudan for the same reasons as those which the Noble Lord imputed to the Egyptians of past days. I quite believe that in the past, Egyptians desired the Sudan for simple reasons of conquest. All people have done that sort of thing and the Egyptians have been no exceptions. But I take a different view as to the reasons why the Egyptians of
        2516
        to-day desire the Sudan. What are the prevalent reasons in the minds of the vast majority of Egyptians? I doubt very much if they wish for the Sudan, as their forefathers may have done, simply for reasons of conquest. I think they probably have entirely different reasons. I do not think it is mere cupidity and the desire to possess a valuable part of territory which they have not hitherto possessed.
        I think that in recent years, in my time in Egypt—and I was there for some years—the reason was entirely a natural and a nervous fear for the safety of her water supply. It may well have been that they had that nervous feeling in preceding generations, and that the conquest of the Sudan was impelled by the desire to conquer the Nile waters, as nobody knew where they came from or whether they could be interfered with, and that condition lasted down to somewhere about 100 years ago. If that was the reason in their minds, they might not have troubled to go to the Sudan at all, because I believe that no art of man could interfere the supply of water which they required From the dawn of history until about 100 years ago the Nile flood provided that supply, despite all that mankind could do. Why should they have a nervous fear now? It is because about 100 years ago the supply of water which they required became rather different. They were content up to that time to have flood water, but after that period Mohammed Ali introduced summer irrigation, and a summer water supply became an absolute necessity, and the whole modern prosperity of Egypt is built on the summer water supply. It is quite true that there are no works yet in the Sudan which could interfere with the summer water supply, nor could it be entirely interfered with even if there were works there, because they have inside their own territory, at Assuan, a large body of water which gives somewhere on the average about a quarter to a third of the normal summer supply, so that it is impossible to imagine that Egypt could ever be without some summer water as long as she has command of her own reservoir at Assuan, but still, the subtraction of two-thirds or 75 per cent. of the normal summer flow would be a dreadful blow to summer irrigation, and to the same percentage it would affect the quantity of cotton grown in Egypt.

        2517
        It is, therefore, quite reasonable to see that Egyptians, if they thought the water supply in the Sudan could be interfered with, would have a right to be nervous and to want to know what was going to happen to the Sudan. They have a still further right in this, that the whole of their territory is not yet fully developed. In the lower part of the Delta there are some 2,000,000 acres at least which could be brought into something like the same state of fertility, probably, as the rest of Egypt, and certainly could absorb summer water, so that Egypt has for that alone to find a further source in the far Sudan from which she can get more summer water. I believe it is impossible for her to increase the water supply inside her own borders, and, therefore, she is bound to go further into this territory where at present there is a condominium, and my reason for intervening at all in this Debate is because I believe I might be able to tell the Committee that there are methods of looking at this problem which probably might relieve Egypt's mind to some extent, if it were really true that the position envisaged by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and by what I believe the Prime Minister has stated on a previous occasion should not come to pass, that is, that Egypt should have no greater power in the Sudan in the future than she has to-day.
        Before I venture on showing why that should be, I might for a moment or two ask permission to look at the relative areas of the countries involved. Egypt itself, as far as the map is concerned, is a very huge country indeed. It covers some 360,000 odd square miles, and as a comparison I might tell the Members of this Committee that their own country, including Ireland, is about 120,000 square miles, so that, as Egypt appears on the map, she has about three times as much as Great Britain and Ireland, but the real Egypt is not that vast area at all. The real Egypt is a very small country indeed, because it is possible to live upon practically only 12,000 square miles out of the 360,000, and the whole of the rest is absolutely barren desert, on which neither man nor beast can thrive, and her 13,000,000 of people are congested on to those 12,000 square miles. It is quite true that the great bulk of them are in the triangular belt of the Delta, which has sides of about 130 miles, with its apex
        2518
        at Cairo, but from Cairo for 700 miles to Wady Halfa, near where the boundary between Egypt and the Sudan lies, it is only a thin, narrow, green ribbon along the river banks, with an average width of something like five miles.
        When we come to the Sudan there is an entirely different situation, although it is perfectly true that in the first long strip of the Sudan the conditions are much the same as in Upper Egypt, that is to say, there is a long, narrow, green strip from Wady Halfa to Khartum, but when you leave Khartum and go up the Blue Nile, into which so much British Government money has been recently poured, the situation is entirely different. The whole country is inside, or very largely inside, the rainy belt, and crops can be grown from rain as well as from irrigation, with the result that very great areas indeed can be covered by population and not merely such a small 12,000 square miles area as comprises the whole of the real Egypt. I think in the Gezira alone there are something like 17,000 square miles. Going up the White Nile the same thing happens, although there the rain is not so heavy, until one gets very much further south than on the Blue Nile, crops can be grown to feed a very large population. There are very great possibilities on the White Nile. I feel certain, too, that the time will come, when the swamp region, through the necessity of Egypt having her present areas developed, and through the necessity of having further areas in the Blue Nile and the White Nile developed, will he so drained that very largely the swamp area will be reduced. The swamp area, by the way, is two or three hundred miles long, by indefinite hundreds of miles in width, and on the borders of that area live a population who drive their cattle in as the swamps contract after the flood season; it may be possible to produce irrigation works even there. It is possible to populate in the distant future great areas further south in Mongalla, and between that and Uganda.
        I have in a few words tried to describe how different the situation is in the Sudan from that in Egypt. This vast country which I have described, of 1,000,000 square miles or more, with its large potentialities, may one day carry a very great population. What is the political future to be? Egypt can perfectly well

        2519
        ask that. The Sudan is as great as Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Germany and all the coast countries of Belgium and Holland up to Norway, I believe, included; in fact, it is as big as the whole of what we to-day call Western Europe, and it had at one time, I believe, a population of from 10 to 20 million people The Noble Lord who spoke before me pointed out that by bad government that population had been greatly decreased. I understand that it was so greatly decreased that when the reoccupation took place there were only 1,500,000 people in the whole country. Since then, owing to the good government given by the devoted band of officials who have been so beneficently ruling the Sudan in recent years, that population has again increased and has trebled itself, and I understand that it is somewhere now between four and five millions. There is no reason at all why that beneficent handling should not go on and the Sudan, in fact, have in future a very great population indeed. In that case Egypt can perfectly well say, "What are our future relations to be to this vast new country?"
        5.0 P.M.
        Here I would like to say that, with the views at present held, and I cannot but say rightly held, the present kind of Government ought to go on in the Sudan. No Egyptian ought, really, to fear, nor do I believe are they really afraid, that England or Englishmen would in any way interfere with Egypt's water supply. I think they know quite well that there is no danger of that. Even if one looks at the mercenary side of the interest of an Englishman, it is to ensure a supply of cotton for their own fellow-countrymen here at home, and Englishmen in the Sudan know perfectly well that if they took away one drop of water from Egypt to which Egypt was entitled, by so much would the cotton crop of Egypt herself be reduced and the volume of cotton coming into this country be affected, so that Englishmen are not at all likely, in my view, to interfere, nor do I think the Egyptians really believe that Englishmen would wish to interfere detrimentally in the future with their water supply, but Egypt can very rightly say that the day may come when, owing, say, to troubles like the recent war, Britain's hand might be released from the Sudan, and what then would Egypt be faced with? She would be faced with a great,
        2520
        central, oligarchical Government in Khartum ruling over a vast population, with whom, possibly, she might find it extremely difficult to deal. I do not think myself that that would be the policy that the British Government would lightly follow. I think it much more likely that what will happen is this, that we have found in the Sudan a continent, and that we have no intention of amalgamating it into a kingdom. I do not think we have any desire to repeat what I believe to have been the error in India, where we also found a continent with diverse races, peoples and religions, and tried to amalgamate them into a kingdom. I think it would be far better if, in the case of the Sudan, each race had its own nationality preserved to it. I see no reason why the races in the Northern Sudan should rule over blacks in the Southern Sudan. At the present day the rule is that everyone ought to have the right to govern themselves, within reasonable limits. To erect, then, a single kingdom such as happened in the Mandi's time in the Sudan, I think, would be a mistake, and that the Sudanese themselves would prefer it if the Sudan were divided, as naturally it is divided, into a, series of separate, great nationalities. When that happens, Egypt would know perfectly well that if Great Britain did leave the Sudan, she would not have, over her water supply one oligarchical body in Khartum, with whom she would find it impossible to deal, and who would have two-thirds of her commercial prosperity in her hands. Instead, she would find a series of different nationalities spread along the Sudan area, with any one of whom she could quite reasonably come to terms with regard to the water supply. The view, then, I have, been trying to give the Committee is that the desirable thing would be to lay how, under British rule, the foundations of nationalities among the various peoples of the Sudan, these various nationalities would take different times to reach to that maturity of self-government which the Noble Lord said ought to be the object of British statesmanship in dealing with subject races of that kind, and, as long as England remained in the Sudan, Egypt would know she was safe, and the Sudan—if in the far distant future that really did happen—would know she would have to deal with separate nationalities

        2521
        rather than one kingdom—and an oligarchical kingdom at that—because it would be a kingdom ruling over diverse peoples and religions. I think in the future all these races in the Sudan would be very glad indeed to remain attached to the British Empire, and I see no reason at all why Egypt herself, although in the first flush, at the present moment demanding independence for herself, has permitted inside her borders many regrettable incidents, she should not also be glad in the future, just as these Sudanese nations I have been envisaging I am sure would be glad, to remain attached to the British Empire as so many of our great Dominions are.
        Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I listened with very considerable interest, and a very large measure of agreement, to the statement that was made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). The one part of his speech which struck me as hesitating was where he came to discuss what, in his opinion, ought to be the remedy for the present dispute between this country and Egypt. I quite agree that everything I have read about the subject shows me that the Noble Lord's history is generally correct, that the record of the old Egyptian Government in the Sudan was a record of slave trading, of oppression and theft very difficult to match in modern history. Everything that Baker says in his "Ismalia," that General Gordon said, that French travellers have said, agree upon that point. There is no use whatever in blinking the fact, however, that the present Egyptian Government have grounds for fear in the present position. Their water supply, without which they cannot live, in the hands of another Power is a very serious matter to them, and, naturally, the Egyptians are seeking for some change which will give them national security. They come along and say, "We must have the Sudan handed over to us." The historical record does not give us any justification for agreeing to do that. If that Italian soldier of fortune, Gessi, who was hired by the late Khedive, is correct in saying that in a comparatively short period of time no fewer than 400,000 slaves were taken out of the Sudan by Egyptians, and shipped to Turkey and Asia. Minor, and if it be correct that, after the Dervish movement was put down, it was found that the
        2522
        population had been decimated from somewhere about 10,000,000 people to 1,500,000, these historical facts would certainly not justify anybody on this side of the House in wishing to return the Sudanese, people to the sole dominance of the Government of Egypt. Nevertheless, we have got to face the fact that Egypt has a well-grounded fear, in so far as her water supply is largely in the control of another Power, even although, that Power is disguised as a condominium.
        What I suggest is that the British Government should face the facts frankly, and offer the Egyptian Government a joint reference of this dispute to the League of Nations. If the League of Nations hold an inquiry, and decide that the British Government ought to be entrusted with the mandate for the Sudan, that finishes it. If the League of Nations, on the other hand, decide otherwise, then I think you ought, in the interest of the Sudanese people, to agree; but, at any rate, I think that the British Government cannot simply ask the Egyptian Government to maintain the status quo. And we have still to face the fact that something has got to be done to disabuse the Egyptian people of the fears that their water supplies are in other hands. I trust the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able, on behalf of the Government, to reassure the Egyptian people, and agree to a joint reference of the matters in dispute between this country and Egypt, in so far, at any rate, as the water supplies are concerned, to the League of Nations, and that we should abide by the decision. If we are not going to use the League of Nations for a matter of this kind, then I can see no reason whatever in having the League of Nations at all. When the Noble Lord was speaking, I ventured to interrupt him, by suggesting that the question of water supplies to Egypt was not finished when you had agreed about the Sudan. The Abyssinians may give the Sudanese and the Egyptians very much more trouble, and I suggest that that question, too, should be dealt with by the League of Nations. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that European Powers with whom we have disagreed might use the situation in that part of Africa to give us all a very great deal of trouble, and it might be that they would stir up in that

        2523
        corner of Africa trouble which we would all be very much better without.
        Finally, in the interests of the Sudanese people themselves, we ought to be able to show clean hands. I quite agree that our Government in the Sudan, so far as I have been able to read anything about it, has been a very, very much higher standard, a very, very much cleaner standard, and a very, very much better standard for the natives than anything that has gone before. But there is entering into the Sudan now a great factor of large scale exploitation, and if we are to have anything to do with the Sudan, we have got to see that the nations are adequately protected in every possible way. I am not at all sure that the recent investigation in the Sudan as to the treatment of the natives has put the complete position. I have asked in this House for particulars about the Sugar Tax, for example. I think that is an iniquitous tax, and a very grievous tax upon the Sudanese. I understand that about 10 per cent. of the total revenue of the Sudan Government is raised by the Sugar Tax on the Sudanese people. This Sugar Tax means that sugar in the Sudan is very much dearer than it is in Egypt, and I suggest that that is a matter, which, in the interests of the Sudanese people, and in the interests of the good name of Great Britain, should be attended to. If large scale companies are to be given great concessions in the Sudan, and are to have under their control the lives and fortunes of millions of people who are practically voiceless, it is up to the House of Commons to see that every possible precaution is taken to secure that the Sudanese people are properly, generously and humanely treated.
        I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is the case that the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, for example, pays no taxation in the Sudan at all, if it pays no contribution towards the finances of the Sudan Government, if the only tax that is paid is a small tax on the export of cotton, and that it pays no Income Tax or anything of that sort? At the same time, the Sudanese are subjected to an extraordinary, and almost penal, taxation on sugar, amounting to about 3d. a lb. That is not much here, where the average wages, perhaps, are £3 per week, but it
        2524
        is a different matter to natives, the standard of whose wages is very much lower. I do not know what it is, but Jet us suppose it is equivalent to 5s. a week, or something like that, then 3d. a lb. on sugar is an extraordinary impost. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that, in the interest of this country, and in the interest of the Sudanese people, we ought to be able to go before Europe, and before the League of Nations, with clean hands, and be able to say, truthfully and honestly, that, in so far as we are assisting in the administration of that country, we are, at any rate, doing it as whole-heartedly as we can for the benefit of the people, and not for the financial profit of a great exploiting syndicate.
        I would press upon the Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, to give us an answer, because he knows the Back Benches here are wholly averse to hanging over the Sudanese people any government which would exploit them, or might enslave them. Still, we want to be assured that, in so far as we are concerned, there is no exploitation of these people. I should like the hon. Gentleman to be able to say that the British Government is willing to refer the matters in dispute between this country and the Egyptian Government jointly with Zaghloul Pasha, to the League of Nations, and that the water supply of Egypt and the Sudan shall be, if you like, under an international body, so that the fears of the Egyptian people in this case shall be removed, and that we will not have unnecessary squabbles which may be much more serious and a sort of irritation that these things in that part of Africa may be removed. They can be removed now, and quite easily if we do not wait till it is too late to do it. I suggest that the discussion this afternoon will give our Foreign Office the opportunity to make a public statement on the subject which will relieve the situation.
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should at the outset like to say how much I appreciate the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) who has just sat down, and the important contribution which he has made to the discussion of this question. It is, I think, quite clear that there is common agreement in this House that we have got to come to a fresh understanding with Egypt in regard to the future government

        2525
        of the Sudan. There is also, I think, common agreement on all sides of the House that we are equally determined in the matter of not being prepared to hand over the administration of the Sudanese people to the Government at Cairo. I entirely agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that we want in this matter a square deal with the Sudanese, and a square deal with Egypt. We want a square deal with Egypt. We can give an assurance on that point, and if our assurance is not enough, then let us give any other form of guarantee that can possibly be devised internationally, or Imperially, in regard to the water supply of Egypt. After all, now, even in the months of May, June and the early part of July, not one drop of water from the Nile reaches the Mediterranean. Every drop that can be provided is used up in Egypt, and clams have to be erected across the mouths of the river Nile in summer to prevent the sea going up. If Egypt is to be guaranteed as to her water supply, and if that supply of water is to be increased in the future, then Egypt must be assured that that water shall not be diverted from Egypt for the purposes of the Sudan until her requirements are adequately satisfied.
        Further than that, we must point out to Egypt that the whole future development of Egypt, and the further supply of water in the critical months before the Nile rises, depends not merely upon what is done in the Sudan, but ultimately what is done, on the one hand, in Abyssinia, and on the other hand in Uganda—that the ultimate control the Nile is in the one case in Abyssinia and in the other ease in Uganda. It is only right that Egypt should have the most complete assurances on this subject of water. Similarly, she should have the most complete assurances in regard to the protection of her southern frontier, because in the Mahdi regime, even so far north as Assouan, the threat to peace and to life in Egypt or the possibility of risings in the Northern Sudan was an ever-present fear.
        Let me turn to the other side. It is perfectly clear that we cannot maintain the status quo because the status quo which exists to-day is bound up with the condominium. That only asked, and only could ask, for British power in the Sudan
        2526
        to administer that country on all fours, pari passu with an effective British control in Egypt itself, which has now gone. It is not for us this afternoon to go into it, but it depended upon the fact that the Governor-General of the Sudan was himself the head of the Egyptian Army. That cannot be in the future. It is quite clear that we cannot have a commander-in-chief of the Army of independent Egypt at the same time British Governor-General of the Sudan. Similarly, in the past a deficit in the Sudanese Budget had to be made up by Egypt. It is quite obvious that an independent Egypt is not going to pay any deficit in the local Sudanese Budget in the future. That is quite clear.
        So I believe that the utmost frankness is the best way with which we can face the present difficulty. We must rid Egypt of her burdens in connection with the Sudan and at the same time give her the necessary guarantee of security, and of water. Quite frankly it is for us to say that in the future we are going to continue the policy of the last 25 years of Lord Cromer and Sir Reginald Wingate and the General Staff—the development of the Sudanese on their own lines with ourselves as trustees for the Sudanese. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that there is nothing in the principle of the mandates which a British administration can raise any single objection to. But the principles enshrined in the famous Article 22 of the Covenant in regard to the outstanding, visible, and practical applications of the principle of trusteeship is one which should and could obtain, and I believe it has obtained under any British administration. There is no part of Africa where there is a higher standard of administration than in the. Sudan. There are other parts of Africa which have to level up to the Sudan at the present moment in matters like education. The work of Gordon at Khartum is destined to be regarded in Africa as work of the finest kind that has been done by any European Power in contact with native races. That work ought to go on. I am quite sure, I think, it is common agreement in this House that work ought not to come to an end.
        In regard to the future, I do hope that nothing will be said—I think nothing has been said—in this Debate to render the task of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary or the Foreign Secre-

        2527
        tary more difficult in negotiations. If we get a friendly settlement by direct negotiation without reference to any outside authority so much the better. Do not let us fall back on references to any international authority until we have had a good chance first of coming to an amicable and sensible understanding. That is the view I personally take, and take very strongly. I am quite sure that we can stand before the world in the late history of the matter with a perfectly clear conscience; while the work we have done for the last 25 years and are doing in the Sudan is that of which we can quite rightly be proud.
        Our object in the Sudan, it seems to me, must be to develop its purely local aspirations. It would be, I believe, impossible as well as morally wrong to attempt to Egyptianise the Sudan, particularly the Southern Sudan, where the vast mass of the population is of the African negroid type, and utterly dissimilar to anything which the Egyptians have to deal with in their own country. The work which is being done already in the Sudan towards the steady development of the community, some of them, I think, very backward indeed, but steadily improving, is encouraging. That is a task which I believe we are peculiarly fitted to carry out, because we have turned out, and are turning out, a tradition in the matter of African administration both in East and West which has produced, not only great individuals, but is producing a type of British administrator and British official whose most sincere pleasure in life is to study the interests of these people themselves. There has never been a finer tradition, of anything near it, than the interest of those in the British Sudan Service. The life of these men has been spent in building up all these peoples after the appalling history of the Sudan right away back in history, and particularly those terrible years after the death of General Gordon, and before Kitchener came back to Khartum. If we can be told of these negotiations, would it be possible for the Under-Secretary to say when these negotiations are likely to commence, and whether he has prepared the way for those negotiations by any definite statement of the main point of view of the British Government?
        2528
        I believe there is nothing to be gained by pretending to Zaghloul Pasha or to any Egyptian Governor that we can give way on certain vital matters. I am sure that we want to get away from what to my mind is a most unfortunate tradition of the various Conferences that have taken place with Egypt ever since the calamitous events of the early days of 1919. The discussions in Egypt and here in London that took place between one Egyptian and another, and the letters that were written and the statements that were made both openly and in public and still more important those not made in public but which were repeated to the Egyptians with all too great rapidity, have undoubtedly cost us a good deal both in prestige and in power. I believe the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised, in going into these negotiations affecting not only the Sudan but also the Egyptian question, to lay all Britain's cards quite clearly on the table. That is our best chance of arriving at an honourable settlement which recognises in the spirit and the letter the new position of Egypt, safeguards her legitimate interests, and leaves us absolutely untrammelled in the future to continue our work in the Sudan.
        One of the first questions which is bound to come up is that of the Army, and I say frankly that I hope the Prime Minister will make it clear that it is not the desire of Great Britain to use Egyptian troops any longer to garrison the Sudan. I believe that the Sudan can provide its own troops and its own de fence, and just as it is the British object in all other African colonies and throughout the world, as far as possible, to reduce the British Staff and the number of British officers to the minimum which is absolutely necessary, and provide, as far as possible, purely local troops for purely local defence, I believe that will have a very beneficent effect both on the Sudan and on Egypt. One thing in Egypt is the dread that the Egyptian fellah has of being conscripted into the Sudan Army. I do not think this is of any great military value in the Sudan, and while the efficiency of the Sudanese battalions themselves is steadily increasing, and I include the Sudanese officers, it should be our aim and object, while coming to a perfectly honourable treaty to give Egypt all her legitimate guarantees, not only about water but about anything else, and to put an end to a con-

        2529
        dominium which under the present system is bound to break down under the new conditions, and give them quite definitely a free hand in the future development of the Sudan.
        What the hon. Gentleman who just sat down said with regard to the future applies not only to the Sudan, but throughout South Africa. One of the great problems of the future is the reconciling of the idea of trusteeship and fair administration for those native people with their economic development. They can never progress mentally, morally or intellectually unless they progress economically. Directly you get Western economic industrialism against these conditions you have that problem to face, and you cannot escape from it. The reconciliation of the principle of trusteeship with economic and commercial development is the great task of the coming century in Africa. You want capital, European supervision and European methods and enterprise, and they can only be introduced gradually and sympathetically, and with watchfulness on the part of the administration. This can be done, but you do not want to send the clock back in Africa. You want things to go forward at a steady pace in order that the future of these dark races may be better than it has been in the past.
        The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): Perhaps the Committee will allow me to intervene now, because I do not think that, however late I stay before intervening, I can add much to the Debate. I should like to take the chance of following the hon. Member who has just sat down because, in content and certainly in spirit, he has expressed the views which most of the Members of this Committee share. I only knew this Debate was coming on an hour or two ago, and I came here to-day in order to discuss a totally different matter, but as I hope the negotiations with Zaghloul Pasha may still come off, it would be advisable for me to keep my hands pretty free, so that he may have no excuse for saying that the negotiations are merely nominal. My position is this: An agreement ought to be come to between the Government of Egypt and Great Britain directly in contact with each other, and no attempt should be made to bring in any outside authority, the League of
        2530
        Nations or some other body. It is much more in the nature of a domestic problem.
        We have been in partnership up to now, and it is not a matter like a dispute, say, between Turkey and ourselves. If you maintain good will following an agreement, and if that agreement is one which is not imposed upon both of us by an outside party, but one which we take upon ourselves of our own free will, it is much better. I have just been informed that Zaghloul Pasha intends to leave Egypt on the 25th of this month, and some time afterwards he hopes that we may get into contact, and be able to find out whether there is any prospect of a settlement. Before saying anything further on the subject, I should like to pay a tribute to the extraordinary capacity of Sir Lee Stack and his devoted band of assistants, because they are not only excellent servants who do their task well, but they are men whose hearts are in their work, and who approach the problems they have to face with all the enthusiasm of a single-minded scientific student. That is the right spirit of British administrators in foreign countries.
        Various questions have been raised. First of all, we had the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston), which I was disappointed to find was so short, because I was deriving much pleasure from listening to it. The hon. Member asked why the Sugar Tax is so high. The explanation is that in the Sudan sugar is regarded as a luxury and as the monopoly of the Government, and the taxation upon it is not supposed, at any rate, according to our report, to be really an oppressive tax upon the great mass of the people. The same hon. Member asks whether the cotton syndicate pays proper taxation. Of course it pays the usual British Income Tax of 4s. 6d. in the £, but the question still arises whether it is paying its fair share towards the Sudan revenue, At the present moment the question is under consideration as to whether it ought to pay extraneous taxes, and that has not yet been settled.
        Mr. JOHNSTON: Then it pays nothing now?
        The PRIME MINISTER: No, I hope this question will be settled very shortly. With reference to the position of the

        2531
        natives, I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not require me to refer him to the report just issued upon this subject, and in that report he will find the very latest information we have at our disposal. I think he will agree with me that the report is a most admirable one, and if we can develop the amenities, the fair play, and the justice to the natives as indicated in that report, we shall be doing a really excellent piece of work for the people who inhabit that area of the Sudan.
        The hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) illustrates that delightful quality of Scotsmen wandering all over the face of the earth taking an exceedingly intelligent account of what they see and what they experience, and he contributed a very interesting speech. I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), and the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who opened this Debate, on this question of water. I give my word and the Government guarantee, and I am glad that I can also give the House of Commons guarantee after the speeches I have listened to, that we are prepared to come to an agreement with Egypt on this subject which Egypt itself will accept as satisfactory. That agreement will be carried out by a proper organisation as to control and so on, and under it all the needs of Egypt will be adequately satisfied. The Egyptian cultivator may rest perfectly content that, as the result of the agreement which we are prepared to make, the independence of the Sudan will not mean that he is going to enjoy a single pint of water less than if he had it and was himself working.
        The position of the Sudan in relation to Egypt and ourselves has fundamentally changed on account of the recognition of the independence of Egypt. That is one of the points which, or at least the consequences of that, belong to the category of matters that ought to be negotiated. The position I have always taken up is, let us negotiate as quickly as possible. I know the great difficulties that Zaghloul Pasha has to meet. He has a new Parliament. It is a raw Parliament; it has not found its feet yet; it is a "heady" Parliament—in other words, it is a Parliament wherein human nature is represented. The more objective we are in these matters, the more good-humoured
        2532
        we shall be ourselves, and the more successful when we come to handle the questions that we have to find agreement. But I have felt that this cannot he allowed to drift, and drift, and drift. There must be plenty of time, but not too much of it. We must not be too slack about it. We must be reasonable, but not unreasonable.
        Therefore, I have quietly pushed to get this thing settled, to get the negotiations begun. But I have said this: While the negotiations are pending, neither Egypt nor ourselves ought to destroy the status quo. That must be honourably understood. No one responsible for the British Government could possibly allow, say, Egypt to hang up the negotiations for 12 months or two years, and, while the negotiations were being postponed, act inside the Sudan so as to disturb our administration or upset the civil order and peace of the country. We cannot allow that. Therefore, as I am afraid some action of that character—I hope much smaller than was represented in the Press—has shown itself, the negotiations ought to be open without delay, and some settlement come to as speedily as possible.
        I do not think the Committee will ask me to say anything more in regard to the line of proposed settlement than this. It must be clearly understood that Great Britain cannot throw off its responsibilities, contracted to the Sudan and the Sudanese, by withdrawing and handing the country over to any other Government. I say that in no aggressive spirit at all, and I say it in no spirit of acquisition. Our burdens are very heavy. Only right hon. Members who sit on the opposite bench and on this one know what the burdens of British Heads of Governments and Heads of Departments are; but I say what I have said because we must stand by the people of the Sudan. We have a moral obligation to them. The story of the past recited by the Noble Lord who opened the Debate was perfectly true, but I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Inverness, namely, that we must not assume that any attempt or desire to repeat that story is now in the minds of the Egyptians. No. I cut that right away. I do not believe it, and I do not accept it in any way whatever. I associate myself with the hon. Member for Inverness——
        Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry if I gave that impression. I entirely associate myself with what the Prime Minister has said. I merely gave it because I thought it necessary that we should realise what it meant.
        The PRIME MINISTER: I am very glad that that has been made clear. I was sure it was in the Noble Lord's mind, and the clarification will help things very much. But that is not our objection; that is not why we are going to fulfil our obligations. We have to fulfil our obligations because we believe that, as the result of the administration in the Sudan, the Sudan is beginning, first of all, to develop its economic resources, to take part in the great economic system of the world; it is beginning to understand and feel the impetus that education like that which is given in the Gordon College, Khartum, gives to mental development; and it is beginning also to understand something of the pride and sentiment of people who feel that somewhere ahead, even though it be far ahead, there is a hope and a pledge that one day they will govern themselves. That is the nature and spirit of the obligation, which we should be worse than cowards if we simply cast aside. I think that that is enough to inform the Committee of what the position of the Government is, what line they will take when negotiations start, and what line they prescribe for a settlement. I sincerely hope that Zaghloul Pasha will come determined to settle, as a reasonable man, objectively minded; that the things that were said just immediately after Egypt became independent will be fulfilled; and that Egypt and ourselves will remain friends, for each other's good and for the good of all the peoples of the countries round about us.
        Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I can only say this afternoon that I profoundly welcome this Debate, because, for the first time for a good many years, I believe the House has been dealing with this subject, not as a political party issue, but as one of national importance. From all quarters of the Committee we have heard statements to-day in regard to this problem, and I trust that nothing I say will do anything whatever to hamper the hands or the action of the right hon. Gentleman who has just made his statement. I do not think it would be possible for any
        2534
        statesman to give more conclusively than he has done the true exposition of our policy as a nation towards the coloured races of the world, and I am quite convinced, speaking for myself, and, I believe, for most of my colleagues on this side, that we welcome every word that the right hon. Gentleman has said. In the Far East and in the Near East, for many years past, we have suffered very much indeed from a lack of what one might call a firm and continuous policy expressed by the leaders of political parties. At last, thank Heaven, we have got a firm and honourable and honest statement of policy, for which I, as a man, thank the Prime Minister.
        I should like to endeavour to reassure the hon. Member for Clackmannan and Western Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston)—who, if he will not mind my saying so, regards the operation of a certain company in the Sudan—which does not interest me—rather in the same light in which Mr. Dick regarded King Charles's head—by saying that in the past in the Sudan, in the Civil Secretary's Office, one of the first principles laid down for all the officials was to safeguard the natives against exploitation by Europeans or foreigners of an adventurous and exploiting character. Every pains was taken to prevent it, not only in the Civil Secretary's Office—where I myself interviewed a hundred and one fossickers who were looking out for concessions and did not get them—but in the Financial Secretary's Office and in other offices. Everything that could humanly be done towards seeing that the economic development of the Sudan was put into the right and not into the wrong hands was done.
        I think, after what we have heard with regard to water, there is nothing that I need add. Every speaker has alluded to the natural apprehension that the Egyptians may have felt in regard to the vital water question, but one small point might, perhaps, be mentioned which will help to enlighten Members to some extent. During the summer months, as was said just now, the supply of water is absolutely essential for the Egyptian cultivator. The Nile does not reach its highest point at the island of Rhoda, at Cairo, till about the middle of September, but long before that the question of the cotton crop becomes important. In the Sudan the position is reversed. The

        2535
        importance of the water supply is in the winter—in September and October; and the erection of these barrages, I understand, is calculated to catch up water which, under the present conditions, is allowed to flow through every barrage from Assouan northwards, and finally discharge itself into the Mediterranean. I do not think it is necessary to enlarge upon that; all that I wanted to point out was that the Sudan wants water in the winter and Egypt wants it in the summer.
        Lastly, when the Prime Minister does come, as I trust he will, to negotiate with Zaghloul Pasha, Zaghloul and his advisers will, no doubt, insist upon the debt which the English owe to the Egyptians, in men and in treasure; but, on the contra aide of the account, there is, surely, a gigantic debt which Egypt owes to England. Even with a narrow vision, looking just at the Sudan question, it is considerable enough, but, when you look at the main Egyptian question, is it not a gigantic total of indebtedness? If you look back to 1884, and look at the measure of Egyptian bankruptcy, and how, by straightforward dealing and skilful administration in the teeth oil the most hideous difficulties, by tact and by sound methods of finance, Lord Cromer and those associated with him restored Egypt from the most hopeless, horrible bankruptcy to a position of prosperous solvency, I think it is sufficient to prove the enormous unpaid debt that Egypt owes to England, beside which any debt incurred by Egypt on behalf of the Sudan is a mere triviality. I do not think, in view of the general consensus of 'opinion on this question expressed on all sides of the Committee, it is necessary to say more than that I hope, when the Prime Minister does meet Zaghloul Pasha, he will maintain his firm attitude and be successful in his negotiations.
        6.0 P.M.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think the Prime Minister has anything to complain of in the general tone of the Debate, and I certainly do not think the Committee has any reason to complain of the Prime Minister leaving so early. In fact, I think it is rather a strain on him to have to reply to this Debate at all. But I was surprised a little by the first part of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Win-
        2536
        terton). With the incurable levity, which even office does not seem in any way to have diminished, he helped the forthcoming negotiations by going out of his way to level insults at the so-called Pasha class in Egypt, supported by inaccuracies which were met in a very able speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald). He raked up history in the spirit rather of the American who was arrested for assaulting a Jew in the streets of New York, and gave as his excuse the horror he felt at the episode of the Crucifixion, and when told that happened nearly 2,000 years ago, said he had only just heard of it. That was the attitude of the Noble Lord. Because in 1820 an Egyptian conquest of the Sudan took place for the purpose of raiding for gold, slaves and ivory, this has to be brought up to-day.
        Earl WINTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to say that. As I have explained in reply to a reference the Prime Minister made to it, I made no such statement. The Prime Minister did not make the mistake the hon. and gallant Gentleman made in thinking I did. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will listen more carefully in future before he brings accusations against everyone with whom he is in disagreement, which is 99 per cent. of the Members of the House.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know quite well what the Noble Lord's motive was. It was to make an attack on the leaders of the Liberal party, to whom he referred as my political ancestors. One does not mind his attacks on the Liberal party. They are a compliment coming from such a source. But these remarks of his—I hope he will realise it when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, if he does read his own speeches, though I doubt whether lie does—do immense harm in the vernacular Press in Egypt. The Noble Lord, who held high office in a Government that fell only recently, began his speech, just before these negotiations—we have had the welcome news that Zaghloul Pasha is leaving shortly to conduct the negotiations—by a gratuitous attack on the ruling class in Egypt. It is extremely unfortunate, and I am going purposely out of my way, which is not at all to my taste, to repudiate such an attack. Thank heaven the two hon. and

        2537
        gallant Gentlemen who followed him chose their words a little more carefully. The Prime Minister has told us—and quite realise that he does not want to say too much at this moment—that under no circumstances will any outside body have any say in these negotiations. I do not think it is altogether realised how difficult the position at the moment is. The status of Egpyt is well known to the House. Incidentally, the attempt to bring about the settlement of Egypt was arrested, of course, by hon. Members opposite. Egypt, at any rate, is practically, to all intents and purposes, independent of us. There is an immensely strong nationalist feeling in Egypt. The present Prime Minister was returned by an overwhelming majority. The Parliament at Cairo is a new one, and the reason is that we took very good care not to allow the Constituent Assembly to be called together for many years when it should have been. But the very effect of the speech of Lord Parmoor in another place was serious. We had the Prime Minister of Egypt offering his resignation. He has withdrawn it. We had demonstrations up and down Egypt. We had the most violent attacks on this Government and this country in the Egyptian Parliament, which I regret very much, and I think there is no doubt that in this statement of the Egyptian people's desires Zaghloul Pasha has the vast majority behind him.
        At the same time, the Sudan is largely garrisoned by Egyptian troops and we cannot use these troops and at the same time refuse to Egypt any satisfaction of her demands. Also Egypt has in the last few years spent considerable sums of money in Sudan, and if a new method of governing the Sudan is arrived at as the result of these negotiations, we must settle the financial question as well, and we may be faced with a quite reasonable and justifiable bill, which will be a very heavy one. It is true that we have spent money also but the Egyptian Government will say: "You are going to stay there You are going to get the benefit in increased cotton supplies. Your capital expenditure will get a return, but we Egyptians will see no return." They will say that their most vital interest, their water supply, may be interfered with, and in any case will be at the mercy of what they call quite rightly an alien Power. Look at
        2538
        the figures of what Egypt has spent. Between 1901 and 1909 £E4,378,000 was advanced by Egypt as capital expenditure, and during the same years £E2,750,000 was advanced to meet the annual deficit. There is, fortunately, no deficit in the Budget to-day in the Sudan but the cost of maintaining these Egyptian troops figures in the Egyptian Budget as expenditure. I am pointing out these difficulties because it must be realised that the situation will not be an easy one and if the negotiations are broken off there may be serious trouble in Egypt. There may be blood-shed. The Sudan is a vast country and there are opportunities for the Egyptians to stir up trouble. We have had demonstrations in Khartoum. How important they are we do not know. The Egyptians say their magnitude has been falsified. We may find ourselves with the Egyptian situation reproduced and without power to cope with it. There is no doubt that at present our point of view and that of the Egyptian Government are very far apart. Under those circumstances I think the suggestion of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. T. Johnston) was most valuable. I prefer that we should come to an agreement direct with Egypt, but it is unfortunate to rule out the League of Nations altogether as a tribunal.
        With regard to the question of the water supply, responsible Egyptians, men of position who are friendly to us, have assured me that at the present moment they are actually suffering from too much water being taken from them. It may not be true, but that is what they think. They say the irrigation works in connection with cotton growing are dangerous to the agricultural prosperity of Egypt. It is necessary that we should agree to a water control board being established, with a completely neutral chairman, a Swiss or a Dutchman, or someone of that sort, who could not possibly be suspected of bias in either direction. There will be a clamant need for water from the Sudan in winter and from Egypt in summer. But, nevertheless, there is this feeling in Egypt that the demands of the two countries may clash and that Egypt will suffer. That is the feeling we have to remove. I think that chairman should be appointed by the League of Nations, and I was delighted at what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said about this country's

        2539
        Colonial administration being quite up to the standard. Everyone who knows the least about the matter knows what a splendid body of men we have working in the Sudan, and how tremendously successful they have been. The Prime Minister did not go as far as the hon. Member for Stafford. The hon. Member for Stafford apparently was prepared to see the mandatory system applied to the Sudan. At any rate, I thought that was a reasonable attitude to take, and I should like to see the Prime Minister take the same attitude.
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I did not go quite so far as that I said there was nothing in any mandate which had been granted to set a standard or lay obligations upon us that we were not already carrying out in the Sudan.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was so pleased with what I thought the hon. Member said that I read too much into it. At any rate, he was not hostile to the mandatory system being accepted by us In any case, the Prime Minister said nothing of the sort. I make every allowance for his difficult position, but it should be made clear to the Egyptian people, as we can make it clear by statements from the Government, that we are prepared really to refer this dispute—every speaker has testified to the justice of our case, and I do not want to dissociate myself at all from that point of view—to a body which has been set up for this very purpose. If we make a serious mistake now the consequences may be very terrible.
        This, I suppose, will be the final opportunity of discussing this tremendously important question for many months. This House has few foreign affairs Debates, and they will be taken up with the great questions pending with ourselves, France, Germany and the Western European countries. The House will rise in August, and it may or may not meet again. At any rate, I should think this is the last opportunity of a discussion unless some catastrophe happens. Might I ask the Under-Secretary to see whether in the forthcoming negotiations we cannot have a real experiment in open diplomacy. Is there any reason why the main discussion should not take place in public? [Laughter.] I should
        2540
        expect some amusement at that. But that was President Wilson's original intention when he came to settle a much greater affair than this. At any rate, the present Government has declared itself again and again in favour of open diplomacy. I hope that there will be as much open diplomacy as possible in these forthcoming negotiations with Egypt. The hon. Member says that we should put all our cards on the table. I hope that we shall invite the other side to put all their cards on the table, and that we shall be kept informed as much as possible of what goes on. That is very necessary, otherwise we may find ourselves faced with dangerous and perilous circumstances in which our nationals may suffer. It is due to the British people, who have to pay for the mistakes of their governors, to know exactly what is going on, and to be warned in time of the events that may occur.
        Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: We have listened with pleasure to the statement made by the Prime Minister. We are glad that Zaghloul Pasha is coming over, and I trust that the negotiations that will take place between him and the Prime Minister will result in a satisfactory termination. I see no reason why they should not. I have every hope, as the Prime Minister said, that Egypt and ourselves will remain friends for each other's good. We all know that the Sudanese and the Egyptians are of an entirely different nationality and that the Sudanese have a great loathing for the Egyptians, having experienced their rule during the last century. We have heard that the Sudanese have different nationalities amongst themselves. There are those we have known as the "Fuzzy Wuzzies" on the Red Sea Coast. Then there are the Arab tribes and the negro tribes further south. All these are now perfectly happy under our rule, and I hope that they may long remain so. The dislike of the Sudanese for the Egyptians, as far as I can make out., was first brought to notice in March, 1922, at the time when statements were appearing in the Egyptian Press to the effect that Egypt claimed that the Sudan should be included within the territories of the Egyptian Government. At that time, the Sudanese notabilities petitioned Lord Allenby that they should not be

        2541
        brought again under Egyptian rule. Lord Allenby quieted them by reading the statement made in this House on the 28th February, 1922, by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was at that time our Prime Minister. I need not go into that statement now, because the statement of the present Prime Minister has superseded it. We all agree that the statement of the Prime Minister is most satisfactory and welcome.
        The question must arise as to a settlement with Egypt. If Egypt refuses partnership with us, then it must be decided in regard to the Sudan that Egypt must go, because we are not going to go. It is vital for Egypt that she should remain in partnership with us. At the present time Egypt is bearing the cost of Egyptian troops that are garrisoning the Sudan. Those troops number about 13,000, of whom 2,000 are pure Egyptian troops, under Egyptian officers, and the rest are Sudanese troops under British officers, with some Egyptian and Sudanese officers. If Egypt refuses partnership with us and goes, there will be really serious questions to be decided, and the first will be that all these Egyptian troops will have to be demobilised. The Egyptian troops and the Egyptian officers will have to go. If the British troops were to leave the country, as the Egyptians are asking us to do, the Sudanese would kill the Egyptians straight away. There can be no doubt about that, and the Egyptians in putting forward these claims must know that perfectly well. The Egyptians cannot remain in the Sudan if we go. If we leave the Sudan, I doubt whether the Egyptians could protect their own southern frontier from being overrun by the Sudanese. Therefore, it is of interest to Egypt to come to some satisfactory agreement with us. Without such an agreement, how on earth can Egypt expect to remain in the Sudan?
        The Egyptians are sending men into the Sudan to try to stir up trouble and dissatisfaction against this country. That is one of the worst things that the Egyptians can do, not only for the British, but for themselves. That propaganda must react on the Egyptians. The whole feeling of the Sudanese is against the Egyptians in every possible way. With respect to our position in the Sudan, we have invested enormous sums of money
        2542
        there, not only in the Gezireh Dam, but in. other great water schemes, and we are not going to leave. Therefore, I hope that when Zaghloul Pasha comes he will realise that this talk that is going on in the Egyptian Parliament is nonsense. God knows why we always want to inflict Parliaments on countries which are entirely unfitted for Parliaments. Here you have these men in the Egyptian Parliament talking wild rubbish about the Sudan. They know that if we leave the Sudan to-morrow it will be a bad thing for them. When Zaghloul Pasha comes, I trust that he will arrive at an agreement with the Prime Minister. I do not agree that we should put this case before the League of Nations. I think the Egyptians and ourselves should come to an agreement together. If we do not make an agreement amongst ourselves it will be bad for both, and much worse for the Egyptians than it will be for us. I welcome the statement of the Prime Minister, and I sincerely hope that his words will be fulfilled.
        Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I cannot help expressing my regret that this Debate was not allowed to rest at the point where it was left by the Prime Minister. I say that, without any disrespect to my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy). The Prime Minister's statement was so pre-eminently satisfactory to all parties in this House—and will prove to-morrow to be satisfactory to every party in the country—that I regret the Debate has been continued. As the Debate has continued, I should like to say a few words in regard to what was said in the very moderately-worded speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, for which speech I desire to express to him my obligations. His remarks were mainly directed to two points. First of all, he directed his remarks to the question of Egyptian financial interest in the Sudan, and secondly, to the question of the very important economic interest in regard to water irrigation which undoubtedly the Egyptian people possess. I do not believe that in any quarter of the House there is any substantial disagreement on these two points. We all recognise that Egypt has incurred very considerable expense in the Sudan. The Sudanese army is at present, to a very large extent, borne

        2543
        upon the Egyptian Vote, and Egypt does possess important financial interests there. These matters are Ĉanable of adjustment. If, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton (Sir C. Fate) says, it should turn out that the Egyptian Government declines to continue what is known 'as the condominion arrangement, the partnership in which, for a good many years, we have been associated with them, then will come the necessity of adjusting the financial burdens, and no doubt Egypt will be treated not only fairly, but generously, when they decide to go.
        In regard to the other matter, I am in very substantial agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull. It is a matter of extreme importance to Egypt that their water supply should be absolutely guaranteed. On that point I associate myself with what was said by a former Liberal Foreign Secretary in another place a week or two ago. Viscount Grey of Fallodon said:
        "I quite agree that as regards Nile waters there is a case for a joint commission to ensure that Egypt does not starve the Sudan of water and that the Sudan does not starve Egypt of water."
        There is a strong case for a joint, commission. These are two points which are perfectly capable of adjustment, namely, the financial point and the irrigation question. Zaghloul Pasha and the Egyptian Pashas may rest assured that when their claims in these two respects are considered they will be not merely adequately, but generously recognised by the Government and the people of this country.
        Having made these two point, as I hope, quite clearly, I desire also to say that it is of the utmost importance that it should be quite definitely understood in Egypt that on the question of the retention of the Sudan by this country there is no difference of opinion among the people of this country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull, in his interesting speech, referred to certain demonstrations which have recently taken place in Khartum. He frankly acknowledged that Le was not in a position to say whether those demonstrations were or were not of any considerable importance. I believe that so far as any demonstrations have taken place they have been due to an impression which it
        2544
        is the duty of this House to remove promptly and finally.
        If I may be allowed to use a colloquial expression, those demonstrations in the Near East, in the Middle East, and perhaps in the Far East have been due to the impression that this country is on the run. I believe that any such demonstrations that have taken place at Omdurman or Khartum are largely due to the suggestion that our occupation of the Sudan may not be permanent and may not even be lasting. It is in the highest interests of the Sudan people themselves, and I believe it is not less in the interest of the Egyptian people and in the interest of the peace of the world, that any such idea should be discredited now, once for all. We are not on the run in the Sudan. I could very well understand from events that have happened elsewhere that that might be imagined. But I should like it to go forth as far as possible as the unanimous opinion of this House that our administration in the Sudan is going to continue indefinitely, not so much in the interests of this country, though I admit it is in the interest of this country, but primarily in the interest of the Sudanese people themselves.
        There are three points of view from which this problem may be, and I think ought to be, regarded. There is first the point of view of the Sudan and Sudanese people. There is next the point of view of Egypt, and of the Egyptian people, but I submit that no less important are the interests of the British Empire. With regard to the interests of the Sudan I do not believe that there is any Member of this House, or anyone who has even a remote knowledge of the facts, who can for one moment suggest that the British occupation of the Sudan has not brought incalculable blessings on the Sudanese people, and, if you were able to take—which you will not he able to do—an expression of opinion from the Sudanese people themselves, there would be an overwhelming opinion in favour of the retention of the Government of the Sudan in the hands of those who have redeemed the Sudan from misery, slavery and oppression. It is common knowledge that we have redeemed the Sudanese people from financial oppression and from personal slavery to a very large extent, and that we have substituted happiness where there was misery, and that lately we have made the desert, to a large extent, blossom

        2545
        like a rose. Having conferred blessings such as these upon the people of the Sudan, I make an earnest appeal to all Members of this House to put on record that we intend to see this beneficent work through, and that, having put our hands to the plough, we do not mean to withdraw them until that work is fully and finally accomplished.
        Coming to the question of Egypt and the Sudan, apart from the question of irrigation, to which I have already alluded, the primary interest of the people of Egypt is in the question of defence. Our occupation of the Sudan is the best possible guarantee which the Egyptian people can have that they will have peace on their Southern borders. We have given to the Egyptian people that peace, and we guarantee as long as we are dominant in the Sudan that that peace will not be broken, but I speak with some little knowledge when I say that if the British flag were hauled down in Khartum an almost immediate result would be a renewal of the troubles on the Egyptian border. The result would be that the Egyptian people would not be able to resist the military pressure which would come from a very splendid military people. We and the Egyptians together have given to the soldiers of these people European discipline. We have made them an effective military power. They were always in one sense a very effective military power inspired by the enthusiasm of Mahdism, but, in addition to that enthusiasm, we have now given to them a European discipline, and for my part I believe that if we retired from the Sudan—an impossible pre-supposition, I suppose—but if we were compelled to retire from the Sudan the security of the Egyptian borders would not be worth 24 hours' purchase.
        On this matter I am glad to think that all parties speak with a unanimous voice. I noticed that in another place the other day the Lord President of the Council quoted with full approval words which were addressed to this House 'by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he was at the head of the Government a little more than two years ago. Speaking in this House the then Prime Minister said:—
        "I now come to the Sudan which is very important to the British Empire. His
        2546
        Majesty's Government will never allow the progress which has been already made and the greater promise of future years to be jeopardised,"
        and the Lord President of the Council speaking in another place said—
        "I emphasise this point and say that the same view is upheld by the present Government."
        Then the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went on to say—and I think these words ought to be put on record in this House and in this Debate—
        "Nor can His Majesty's Government agree to any change in the statue of that country which would in the slightest degree diminish the security for the many millions of British capital which are already invested in its development to the great advantage of the Sudan."
        I do not want my last words to have reference to the security of British capital, important as that is. It is important that we should safeguard our very heavy commitments and investments in that country, but what I desire to say in a concluding sentence is this, we are in the Sudan, first of all, for the security of the world; we are in the Sudan, in the second place, for the security of the Egyptian people, and we are in the Sudan, in the third place, in order to promote the good government, the social contentment and the economic prosperity of the Sudanese people themselves.
        Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The opening speech of the Noble Lord (Earl Winter-ton) took our minds back to events which occurred in this country in its military history, as also its political records, and excited very regrettable memories. Ever since that time we have had undoubtedly in evidence the claim, which was emphasised by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat dawn, that we have made the Sudan, which was a wilderness, to blossom like a rose; but still one is led to feel considerable anxiety as to the possibility of repetition of such unfortunate events as those which happened in the past. I was therefore very anxious when I listened to the hon. Member for Hull, when he used those words, "There may again he bloodshed. "The hallowed memory of General Gordon will always be with us, and the efforts which he made, it seems to me, will still linger among those who closely scrutinise the records of that time.
        There is the idea that, though we had at the head of affairs at that time a great statesman, things were not done with

        2547
        sufficient promptness, from a military standpoint, but there are many who take their stand on a plane which, we thank God, is recognised in this country as elsewhere as being the only plane on which we are at all likely to succeed. That is the plane on which we stand when we congratulate the Prime Minister in heartfelt sympathy and encouragement for his work, which he is handling with remarkable skill and very great care, and a keen desire to see that everything is done with credit to all concerned.
        I, personally, am anxious about the question on which he himself, as well as the Under-Secretary, has laid emphasis in the past in the matter of open diplomacy. We are at that stage in those negotiations where I am sure all the people of this country, and especially all those who are supporters of the party in office at the present time, more particularly after the discussion which has taken place this evening, will be particularly anxious to see how far we are taking this note which, unfortunately, has entered into the statement of the Prime Minister, and which has given so much a feeling of aggravation to our friends on the other side, that we are not going in any way to concede any claim on the part of the Sudanese for special consideration, and that we are going to say that any negotiations which do take place are to be exclusive of any third party considerations.
        That brings us to the all-important stage not only on this question, but on similarly important questions pertaining to the Foreign Office, namely, the necessity for standing by that to which this country has given evidence of a general support, and more even than a general support—the League of Nations. The hon. Member for Hull has struck, in my view, the note which is of the greatest importance. It will be a great mistake if the Government is going to lay down that Britain is not prepared to submit with confidence to such a body as the League of Nations, and that, because we are convinced that we have no right to show any laxity regarding our claims, we are going to bind ourselves with self-pride and absolute satisfaction by the claim that we have trodden the narrow path, and that we have never done anything else either for
        2548
        the Sudanese or the Egyptians save on the lines of making the desert blossom like the rose, and that we are so highly self-satisfied with ourselves that, though we strenuously commend the League of Nations to all other nations, and urge them strenuously to adopt its plan, yet for ourselves the door is shut.
        Of course, to me that is fatal. It is a fatal blow from the Front Bench of a Labour Government, and it will be taken as such in every Chancellery that you can have in view. It will from this moment be said, "Here you have failure on the part of the very country that has been specially identified with the advocacy of the League of Nations." It is of the utmost moment that we should take note of the deep satisfaction that the Prime Minister's statement has given to the other side. Zaghloul Pasha, in my view, achieved a triumph against our policy. He led affairs on lines which secured for him a magnificent proof of growing and steadfast loyalty on the part of those who were with him, and all our subtleties, schemes and plans to obviate that rising movement were made utterly futile. Personally, I was one of those who were favoured with the opportunity of meeting his private secretary downstairs when he was welcomed to this country not many months ago. To every guest on that occasion it was a great satisfaction to find the encouragement that was forthcoming from representatives of the Labour party, the Liberal party and, if I am not mistaken, from one or two of those on the opposite side of the House. We have now come to the stage when negotiations are to be continued. We are all delighted to think that the Prime Minister is entering into the matter with earnestness and devotion. That is gratifying to the country generally. But with all our tributes to his earnestness, we think that be has become unduly captivated by the sort of deliverance which has been quoted by the last speaker—that we are not in any way to move one inch, that we remain adamant.
        I am surprised to find that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has got on to that sort of political rock-bound foundation, which we have been taught on this side was rather a sandy foundation, though it is one in which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) believed. I am for

        2549
        no bloodshed on this job. That is the special reason why I am speaking now. You can prove what you may about capitalistic investment, or anything else, and all that you may have done—I am not going to dispute it—but we are out to secure that things are done on a basis of earnest, fair and generous consideration of our claims and the claims of the Egyptians and Sudanese. We are satisfied that we have a splendid case. As far as I am personally concerned, if the negotiations cannot be completed with satisfaction to ourselves, I say, "Place the matter unreservedly in the hands of the League of Nations, to adjudicate on the respective claims." I am told that if the Sudanese or the Egyptians are left to themselves the Sudan people will wipe out the Egyptians. If the Egyptians are foredoomed, I expect that they, who are the representatives of the most ancient and enterprising nation in the history of the world, understand that very well. Whether or not that be the case, we ought to maintain faith in the League of Nations. I do not think that the symptoms are what might reasonably have been expected. I will have no bloodshed; I will back no such thing as war on any consideration whatever. The Sudanese belong to their particular country as I belong to Scotland, and the Egyptians have their own part of the world to look after. Let other people have a chance of saying, "We really do know something about our own interests, and we want a chance of some little freedom to make a move." It is a scandalous procedure to try to throttle a nation. If these negotiations are not completed satisfactorily, I certainly pledge my word that I will oppose anything like bloodshed concerning those things which pertain to the nations of the world.
        Commander BELLAIRSThe hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. Commander Kenworthy) said he doubted whether the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) read his own speeches. That shows that the Noble Lord has a clear conscience in regard to his speeches. The Noble Lord came to speak for me on the day before the poll at the General Election, and I was returned by an increased majority of well over two thousand. That shows that the Noble
        2550
        Lord's speeches are particularly efficacious speeches. If the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull publishes his own speeches in five volumes, under the title of the "March of Intellect," I venture to say that he will be the only reader. The last speaker, like the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, wanted the League of Nations brought into this question. It is not the sort of question that has ever been referred to the League. You might as well expect the Americans to refer the question of the Phillipines to the League. It is a perfectly simple question. The Sudan has been administered jointly by Great Britain and Egypt, with Great Britain as the predominant partner. If Egypt drops out, Great Britain takes over the job. At present, as the Prime Minister has said, we are quite willing to go on administering under the status quo, but that means that Egypt shall co-operate in the way in which she co-operated in the past. In the past the Sirdar was the Administrator of the Sudan, and the arrangement was perfectly simple. Now that Egypt has her independence she can, if she likes, put obstructive methods in the way, but in that case it would be necessary to say to her that this cannot go on. Either she must come to an agreement or we must act separately. The last speaker spoke of Egypt as the most educated and most enterprising nation in the world, or something of that sort. I suppose he thinks the Sudanese people the most backward.
        Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: No.
        Commander BELLAIRS: If they are an illiterate people they are a people who have by word of mouth a strong tradition. They have long memories, and the memories of all the Sudanese tribes go back to the old days of Egyptian oppression from 1820 to 1882, and they will not tolerate a reversion to that state of affairs. The presence of the British is the best guarantee of the Egyptians, because, if the British went, the Sudanese would go to war at once. And they would stand a very good chance of winning. It is sometimes suggested that we should have dual control. We have had some experience of dual control in this world, in Egypt itself, in Samoa and in Tangier, and it has never succeeded. It must now, as ever, be the predominant partner

        2551
        whose word is final in decisions. Of course, I recognise what the Prime Minister brought out so well in his admirable speech, which commended itself to all sections of the House, that we must satisfy Egypt in regard to her water supply. That, of course, is a sine qua non. I do not wish to stress the material side of the argument, but I must say that Egypt in relation to the Sudan is in much the same position as Great Britain in relation to Ireland over 100 years ago. We wanted in that case to prevent Ireland trading with certain commodities. We prevented it.
        Egypt does not want the Sudan to produce cotton, because the Egyptians think that it will rival Egyptian cotton. The demands are for two quite different articles. We do want to develop the Sudan, and the only way is by making absolutely certain of security and law and order. In guaranteeing that security we also guarantee Egypt against civil war. Another point of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull was that we owed Egypt money, because of Egypt's services in the Sudan, Egyptian troops having been employed there. We have rendered far greater services to Egypt and services of far more financial value. The Egyptians surely cannot have forgotten Fashoda, where we saved the Sudan from being dominated by a European Power which sooner or later would certainly have invaded Egypt as well. The fact is that Egypt has been invaded over and over again, and the successful resistance to invasion has always come from the support of this country. We saved them from invasion by the Turks the other day, just as we saved them from the French. I welcome the Prime Minister's speech because of his educational possibilities on his own party. I cannot forget that that party sent out to Egypt five Socialist Members of Parliament. Of the three survivors two are Members of the Government—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department and the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and the third Member is the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills). None of those Members has honoured this Debate. They were welcomed in Egypt, as they said, with delirious enthusiasm. How did they get that delir-
        2552
        ious enthusiasm? I know that, like Caesar's wife, they are above suspicion, but to my mind they rather resemble the definition of Caesar's wife which was given by an American senator who said that someone was "Like Caesar's wife, all things to all men."
        7.0 P.M.
        They went out to Egypt and they said exactly what the nationalist said. They never referred on any single occasion to the Suez Canal; they never referred on a single occasion to the Sudan. They were the two questions which were ruled out. There was nothing but "delirious enthusiasm." In fact snow ploughs would have been required to clear the tracks of the crowds which welcomed them to Egypt. They gave as a reason for that great welcome that they were British democrats who had come to help the Egyptians to realise their ideal of self-determination. Here is self-determination in operation: The Sudanese are 99 per cent. in favour of British control. There is self-determination! The other point made by Egyptians was that the word of an Englishman is his bond. Well, the word of an Englishman is his bond as regards the Sudanese, as witness their belief in Lord Cromer, Lord Kitchener and Lord Allenby. That point is to be remembered when these negotiations are entered upon with Zaghloul Pasha. It is not merely that, but when the deputation of chiefs came over here to England and put their case, the Cabinet pledged themselves, and what is much more important in the eyes of Eastern races, the King himself made a speech in which he guaranteed their independence. That is my answer to the Member for Dart-ford who asked, on 30th June, the Prime Minister what the pledges were and by which Government they were given to the Sudan. Those pledges have been reiterated again and again. We in Britain understand logic. Eastern nations, on the contrary, as Disraeli said, are governed by their imagination. It is all important that we should maintain in dealing with the East those old traditions which have served so well in the past.
        The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

      (UNCLASSFIED SERVICES.)

        GRANTS FOR COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE BY ENEMY ACTION.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £150,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Grants in respect of Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action."—[Note: £350,000 has been voted on account.]
        Mr. HARMSWORTH: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10.
        This Debate has come up at last and I hope it will give an opportunity to hon. Members, not only to express their opinions, but, if necessary, to support their opinions in the Lobby. We have on previous occasion had Debates on compensation on the Adjournment but as every hon. Member knows Debates on the Adjournment are very unsatisfactory; few Members are present and if the answer is unsatisfactory there are no possible means by which the House itself can come to a decision. I know that this subject, which has been debated on various occasions, is not understood by a great many people and by a, still larger number is regarded as something which should have been settled long ago. I agree that on the First Reading of the case of these people you would come to that conclusion, but the more you go into it the more you must realise that they have an extraordinarily good case against the Government to-day. I should like to direct the mind of the Financial Secretary back to the period of the War. He will remember that in 1914 and 1915 started those raids on the East Coast and London which have resulted in the cases which we are debating to-night. When the raids started, we had no means of insurance. It was impossible for a person to pay the premium that was offered by any of the insurance companies. The Government came to the rescue and started its own insurance scheme. In 1915 they offered the very high premium of 3s. 6d. Many people were unable to pay the premium, and in many cases did not take up the insurance at all, and some of those who were able to take it up did not take it up in sufficient amount to cover the value of the property insured. Owing to agitation that premium was reduced to 1s. 6d. two years afterwards.
        2554
        The houses and the smacks of the fishermen were involved. Those who had their property demolished in the two years and did not get the insurance money are among the claimants whom we are considering to-night. I am sure it will be apparent to all hon. Members first, that there is the argument that the poorer people did not understand insurance and did not insure, and, again, a number of people could not afford to insure by paying the premium the Government asked.
        When the War ended, there came an agitation from these people that something more should be done for them than they had under the insurance scheme. It was found that a number of people who were hurt through the War did not insure, and a deputation came to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George). I should like to read to the Committee an extract from the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made to the deputation when it came to see him. After hearing the case of the deputation he replied as follows:
        "You represent towns which have sustained a great deal of damage through these insensate and barbarous raids. There is at the present moment, I understand, an insurance scheme on fairly generous and liberal terms for dealing with this very problem, but I am not sure that it is completely applicable to the facts of the case. First of all there is always the difficulty of making any scheme of this kind known to the smaller people and it is not always that they can take advantage of it. There are not merely tradesmen and factory owners and owners of big properties who are suffering, but there are poor people who have had their all destroyed in these air raids and it is just as important to them to have protection and they are just as much entitled to it as are these great factory owners and others living under more prosperous conditions. And I am not sure that it is a complete answer to say to these poor people, Well, you should have insured tinder some scheme,' because it takes a long time, as everybody who has been associated with insurance matters knows, to bring home the benefits of insurance to every class of society. It requires many agencies and an army of persuasive tongues for that purpose and we have no time for that sort of thing in this War, I think myself that, in principle, you certainly made out a case. The French Government have given a general pledge that the devastated areas will be restored. Well, the devastation there is on a more wholesale and a more terrible scale and the losses inflicted are terrible and the harden of the French Government will be all the

        2555
        greater. But whether greater or smaller the principle is exactly the same. We must protect our people in so far as we can against the consequence of these barbarities and we ought to do so without distinction of rich or poor. Therefore in principle I accept on behalf of the Government the case you have put before me."
        After this deputation nothing was done for a considerable length of time, until at last a Royal Commission was set up and in 1920 they went into the subject of the £5,000,000 that had been set aside to deal with the situation. When that £5,000,000 was set aside by the then Government for the Royal Commission to distribute, it was not intended that that amount should be a final settlement. It was merely intended that a certain sum of money should be set aside so that these people who, if they had waited till the money came from Germany, would be either dead or have passed through a great deal of suffering, should be kept quiet, and also to help them over these troublesome years till Germany paid. I am perfectly certain the Chairman of the Royal Commission did not have the idea in his head that this was to be the final settlement. If we examine for a moment how the Commission went to work, no democratic country in this age would agree that the Royal Commission did sit for a final settlement of these people's claims. When a decision was taken on any particular claim, no reason was ever given for it. These people could not state their case. It was entirely undemocratic, entirely arbitrary, and the only excuse for that Commission was that it was to distribute a temporary sum of money as best it could. If those circumstances are agreed upon, then the Commission did its best to remedy the circumstances. If, on the other hand, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury takes the view that it was on a final settlement against the Government that the Commission was set up, then all I can say is that those people have been treated in a totally arbitrary manner by a Commission which could not be described as democratic, and which in many cases turned down claims which no Government would ever dare to turn down. There has been a great deal of talk both by the spokesman on the Treasury Bench and others of the Treaty of Versailles. I should just like to read one paragraph out of that Treaty on this subject. It says:
        2556
        "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm, and Germany accepts, the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as the consequence of the War imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."
        It is further stated:
        "The Allied and Associated Governments require, and Germany undertakes that she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allied and Associated Powers and to their property during the period of the belligerency of each as an Allied or Associated Power against Germany by such aggression by land, by sea, and from the air," etc.
        It is perfectly obvious, as stated in the Treaty of Versailles, that people, not only here but in France as well, were to be compensated. In France it is recognised by the French Government and always was recognised that the devastated areas came first, and that if any money came from Germany it would go to the devastated areas. In this country the damage was not so great. I venture to think that, if troops had landed in this country and devastated a part of Kent and Sussex, the question would have been settled a very long time ago. It is just because the air raids and bombardments occurred in different parts of the country and at different times the Government have tried to pass it over. I understand that approximately something like 100,000 claims were recently sent in. If you take 100,000 claims you will probably find they affect half a million people. I think the Financial Secretary should very seriously consider this matter. The Department replies always in these terms, and I should like the Committee to listen to this letter, in order to realise that the Government have agreed that it is a final settlement which has been carried out by the Royal Commission. If it was not agreed that it should be final when the Commission was set up, then I want to know by whose authority this letter has been sent out. It is to this effect:
        "I have to inform you that an order will be issued to you as being the amount recommended in your case by the Royal Commission as compensation for the suffering and damage inflicted on you by enemy action, and that this is a final settlement of your claim."
        I want to know by what authority that letter was sent out by a Department of the Board of Trade. It certainly has

        2557
        never received the sanction of this House of Commons. It has been sent out since the Royal Commission ceased to sit. I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us on what authority it is announced that this is a final settlement, thus giving the claimants no alternative, and no hope that, in case any money is forthcoming from Germany, they will be allowed to share in it. Their case is, in fact, entirely dismissed.
        Mr. KEENS: I put a question to the Prime Minister the other day, and I have been informed that in many cases repayable advances have been or will shortly he made out of the £5,000,000.
        Mr. HARMSWORTH: I venture to suggest that in many of the cases which have been turned down there is really no ground for the assertion that it is a final settlement of the claim, and we maintain that when money is forthcoming from Germany, if it ever is, then more should be distributed among these claimants. The taxpayer, we are told, must come first, but many of these people will have lost, not only as taxpayers, but in other respects, owing to the general panic caused by the War. There is a controversy in some parts of the House as to whether Germany should pay any war indemnity, but I have never heard a single hon. Member declare that Germany should not pay for the wanton damage she did in the Allied countries. Whether the Government agree or not that Germany should pay an indemnity, and whether they think it would help trade or not that she should do so, I am convinced no hon. Member will get up and suggest here that Germany should not pay for the damage she inflicted not only on the militant side and in various areas in France, but on the civilian population in this country also. If it is to be laid down she is not to pay for the damage inflicted by air raids or bombardments, then when we get another war, be it big or small, it will be laid down that under the precedent now set any Power can do any damage it likes to civilian populations and will not be called upon to pay compensation for it. Germany surely should be made to pay for the damage she did in the Allied countries. That was not definitely fixed in the Peace Treaty, but it was mentioned. I think a Committee ought to have been set up to go into this
        2558
        question. I hope when the Financial Secretary replies he will give us something for these people. I do not want to place the Government in an unpleasant position, but I do want them to do something for these people, so that justice may be done.
        Of course, I may be told that the Exchequer is not prepared to make any further grant. If it is not, I must accept that fact, but I am sure that the money was acceped by the claimants on account, and they understood that if Germany paid anything under the Dawes scheme, then more money would be allocated to them. If the hon. Gentleman will not agree to that, will he agree to set up a Parliamentary inquiry to go into the whole question? There has so far been no inquiry into it. The Royal Commission was really appointed to allocate the £5,000,000, and it got rid of that money, but there has been no Committee to go into all the question whether these people should have further money or not. I believe these people would accept the findings of such a Committee. This is more than a party question. The Government is a minority Government, and Members of all parties are interested in this matter. It is a question, therefore, which could be left to an open vote of the Committee to decide whether there shall be an inquiry into this matter, and whether any further money shall be allocated to these people. The case is perfectly clear. Even to-day there are people in different parts of the country who are still living in absolute poverty because of the damage they suffered during the War. You have at the moment in some coast towns two classes of the population: one class came back after the War and have been making money ever since. They are a flourishing class. But the other part of the population, which stuck to the towns throughout the War, now find themselves hopelessly insolvent, and will probably never be able to get on their feet again. I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on all grounds, on compassionate as well as on moral grounds, to further consider this matter and enable us to tell these people that they are going to have justice done them, and that an inquiry is to be held into their case. Unless that is done I am afraid it will leave in their minds a feeling that they have been forsaken by their own

        2559
        Government. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman with confidence to approach this matter with fairness and justice, and from an entirely impartial point of view. Let him give these people some hope that in the future their case will be reconsidered.
        Lord APSLEY: I rise to second the Amendment.
        Mr. SEXTON: I want to be allowed to make a personal explanation on this subject. It is true that at the beginning I did express my sympathy with this movement, but I never gave my consent to my name being attached to the circular which has been issued.
        Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I say in reference to that that the hon. Member told me ho felt great interest in this matter, and that I could use his name in any way I thought fit.
        Mr. SEXTON: Well, I want to dissociate myself from that circular. I am a supporter of the Government, although I am not enamoured of everything that they do. I sympathise with these people, no doubt, but I distinctly refuse to allow my name to be used in this connection.
        Lord APSLEY: Have I not, a right to speak in seconding the Amendment?
        The CHAIRMAN: A seconder is not necessary.
        Mr. KEENS: It was my privilege recently to call the attention of Parliament to the fact that another group of equally deserving people are in a condition of absolute destitution. I refer to our nationals in Turkey. On the 10th April I put a question to the Prime Minister on the matter. The position of these people is different from that of those whose cases have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth). I wish to apologise to him for interrupting his speech, but while those whom he specially represents have received some money which is said to be in final settlement of their claims—whether that be so or not I cannot say—these unfortunate claimants of whom I am speaking are told that the money which has been handed to them represents simply repayable advances.
        Major BURNIE: Is it in order on this Vote to raise the question of cur nationals in Turkey?
        The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is quite out of order in raising the question of the British nationals in Turkey on this Vote, which has only regard to damage done-by the enemy in this country.
        Mr. KEENS: I want to call attention to the answer of the Prime Minister to the question I put.
        The CHAIRMAN: I understand that this Vote is applicable to British nationals only and not to Turkish nationals.
        Sir GERALD HOHLER: I believe the sum of £5,000,000 which was dealt with by the Royal Commission was intended to cover damage of every kind suffered through enemy action. It was to cover cases of personal injury, wherever they occurred, and I have in mind a case of a man who was injured by the Russians while confined in one of their prisons, and he has complained of the smallness of the amount he got awarded him out of this fund. I think, therefore, that in this particular distribution claims of every kind for damage from enemy action, wherever they arose, were to be covered so far as the £5,000,000 would go.
        Mr. KEENS: May I read the answer which the Prime Minister gave me on the 31st March of this year?—
        "In respect of many of these claims repayable advances have been or will shortly be made out of the fund of 5.000,000 provided by the British Treasury, which is being distributed in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on suffering and damage by enemy action."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 31st March, 1924; cols. 1805–6, Vol. 171.]
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In view of what has been said and in view of the information which I have now obtained, I think it would not be wise to restrict the Debate within the limits which I previously suggested, and accordingly the hon. Member may proceed.
        Mr. KEENS: The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) called attention to claims of a certain class which had been refused on account of non-insurance, but I wonder what the Committee will think of the decision of the same Commission in respect of a claim by a British citizen living in Constantinople for many thousands of pounds for the loss of a steamer by enemy action, which claim has been refused on the ground that the

        2561
        British citizen in question should have insured the steamer, although at the time of the occurrence it was impossible for any British national in Turkey to communicate with this country for any purpose whatever. In fact, letters sent by this particular firm were delivered in London six years afterwards. It was utterly impossible to do anything to insure the vessel. Not only is there the loss which these unfortunates have suffered, but we have actually reached the position that the Treasury or some other authority is endeavouring to collect from them their fares on the steamer on which they had to be taken away from Constantinople. It is suggested that, at any rate, they may be allowed off payment for their food, and it is said that where it was found necessary a warship was sent to take some of them off, and I am not aware that any attempt has been made to recover their fares in respect of that passage, but in regard to others, in spite of not paying the claims of these poor individuals who were cleared out of Constantinople, an attempt is still being made to collect from them the amount of passages on the "Empress of India." Well may some almost frantic individual among them write as follows:
        "I expert it is quite hopeless claiming the fares of the refugees on the Empress of India.' back from the Foreign Office, but if anything is being organised Jet me know. I am quite willing to join in a procession to Downing Street with banner, etc. You must shoat and bully to get justice out of the British Government."
        I hope that is not true, but it is a serious thing that any of our nationals should be brought to write anything such as that. These people have been deprived of all their possessions, and apart from any repayable advances which may have, been made, they have an additional claim which arises in these circumstances. I am aware that in the answer given me by the Prime Minister he denies that any claim of Turkey against this country in respect of two warships was ever admitted by His Majesty's Government, but how that comes to be stated I do not know in view of the terms of the Treaty. There was a time between let August, 1914, and 1st November, during which we were at war with Germany, but were not at war with Turkey, and on the opening day of the war with Germany there were in this country two warships under construction for the Turkish Government. In connec-
        2562
        tion with these warships a sum of money had been deposited in this country, and there was also due a sum of money in respect of Treasury Bills. We requisitioned the ships and declined to repay Turkey the £7,000,000 which they had paid. Probably we did so quite properly. We may have, had information that Turkey was mobilising, and decided not to give, them any more money, but the net result was that the Turks began to "take it out "of our nationals during that period. They made requisitions on our nationals for goods, for grain, for gold, they denuded engineering works, took everything they possibly could and requested our nationals to look to the British Government for payment.
        Up to the present these people have not been compensated in any way whatever for what they suffered. Under the Treaty of Lausanne a sum of £5,000,000 is in the hands of the British Government and is earning interest, and in this sum all Allied nationals are entitled to share pro rata. We do not know the amount of the claims, but I understand they exceed that sum by a very large amount. It seems to me that we have a definite obligation, apart from anything else, to our nationals in Turkey who were put into the position I have described because of the action of our Government during that three months. They are certainly entitled to set their claims against the sum of money which we hold in our hands as the price of the two warships. We are told that this money was not really Turkey's, but was raised by voluntary subscription in Turkey. However it was raised, it was deposited by the Turkish Government in this country as payment for these ships. I am aware that a large proportion of it was raised, by methods known to the Oriental, out of the British community in the first Instance. Certain methods were employed by which sums of money had to be paid and were in fact paid by the British community to the Turkish Government for the purchase of these warships.
        Apparently it is contended that under the Treaty this particular matter does not arise. How that can be, having regard to the terms of the Treaty, I do not know. It seems to be as clear as possible by the Treaty of Lausanne page 832, that the sums of money which were deposited in Vienna to cover the first issue of Turkish paper currency were to be trans-

        2563
        ferred to the Allies and were to be available for the nationals of all the Allies who suffered damage in Turkey, but over and beyond the claims of all these nationals comes the special claim of our own people for damage done by requisition of the enemy, that requisition being carried out on the distinct understanding that it was made because Great Britain had taken Turkish property and were not paying for it. That there should be any dispute on the point seems to be impossible after reading Articles 57 and 58 of the draft Treaty. To sum up the position, I support strongly the claim of the hon. Member for Thanet that these questions should be dealt with and the facts ascertained. I agree with him that the Commission has not attempted to do anything more than pursue a very rough and ready method of assessing damage, and by the method of the assessment. of these damages grave injustice has been done—as in the case I have quoted of an individual whose claim was rejected on grounds of non-insurance, though it was physically impossible for him to communicate with this country for insurance purposes. A large number of other cases in which similar errors appear to have been made have been brought to notice.
        The time has arrived when there should be some further inquiry into this matter, and although it may cost the Treasury some more money to do justice, I think it is the desire of everybody in this country that we should do justice to our own nationals. When one attempts to argue the claims of British nationals in any specific country, one is invariably told that the condition of British nationals in other countries is as bad or worse. That does not appear to be any answer at all. These nationals of ours are in foreign countries for perfectly legitimate purposes, chiefly purposes of commerce, and their services to this country have been very great indeed. As a matter of fact, our overseas trade is largely in their hands, and we are very largely dependent upon these particular people in Turkey if we wish to resume trading relations with Turkey 'to any extent. Many of these firms have been there for a long time, they are trusted by the Turks, and anything that is to be done to re-open trade will have to be
        2564
        done through them. We know there are great difficulties in trading in this part of the world, but these people are willing to take the risks. They cannot do so to-day, because for 10 years they have been deprived of goods, many of them have been living in this country in destitution, and some of them have been trying to earn small incomes out there and to keep their wives and families here. If we are to reopen trade with Turkey we shall have to see that justice is done to these people and that they are put into a position to resume trade operations. I have endeavoured to place before the Committee the position of these unfortunate individuals, which is different from the case of our nationals in other countries, and it is perfectly obvious that we must make a serious attempt in some way or other to settle their legitimate grievances. Otherwise it will be a sorry day for this country if, in the language of the letter which I have just read, it is assumed that bare justice cannot be obtained from the British Government.
        Lord APSLEY: I will not follow the hon. Member who has just sat down into the no doubt genuine grievances of Turkish nationals
        Mr. KEENS: May I correct the Noble Lord? I refer to British nationals in Turkey.
        Lord APSLEY: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I wish to refer particularly to this question as it affects English people in England, and I wish to dwell on the cases of a particular class, namely, merchant seamen. This class is affected by the question of reparation claims more than any other, and it is the class to whom we owe our very existence as a nation. It is a class which is probably less able to express its grievances than any other in this country. I calculated that in my own constituency at the last election over 9,000 merchant seamen were unable to vote. In addition, the merchant seaman is peculiarly handicapped in those methods of pen-and-ink warfare which I am afraid are necessary to anybody who wishes to get anything out of the Government. For obvious reasons they are constantly changing their abode, they are constantly at sea and, generally speaking, in a matter of this kind they are handicapped in comparison with those

        2565
        who have a more stable existence. I have, during the last few days, received particulars of over 300 cases of real hardship to men who were torpedoed or who suffered otherwise from enemy action during the War and who have put in claims. Time would not permit me to read very many of them. It is true that there are some that are not quite genuine, as, naturally, in a case of this sort, there are bound to be some bad cases as well as good, but the majority are perfectly genuine cases, and there are some cases of very severe hardship, indeed, that would make most pathetic reading, and which, in hands more able than my own, if they were read, for instance, by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), would, I believe, reduce this Committee to tears. I will take one or two of them, which I beg leave to quote, because they are fair average cases of what has been going on. Here is an ordinary letter from an ordinary seaman, who was torpedoed on his ship, and he says:
        "Having forwarded a letter to the Commissioners stating that I was serving on board the s.s. "Harpelus" as a fireman. … at the time she was sunk, to all and sundry inquiries I make, I receive a postcard saying, We have received your communication of such and such a date, and beg to say it will have attention.'"
        This man sent in his claim in time, and he got this ordinary official reply time after time, and at last, after he had sent it in four times, he was told that his claim was belated. There is another case which I will quote, because it is one of very real hardship. It is that of a man who was torpedoed and who lost his leg from the explosion He writes:
        "My claim was for lose of left leg through being torpedoed, loss of employment through being disabled, total inability to support myself, wife and two children, also loss of effects and personal property."
        He claimed for £849, and sent in his claim in 1918. He was paid £30 in August and 35 in February, 1923, and they gave him no further information about his claim at all. The last letter that I will read is that of a widow, aged 66, who lost three sons in the mercantile marine. They were all torpedoed and lost their lives. She had no other source of income at all, and, the sons having been in the mercantile marine and not in the Navy or Army, she was unable to get any pension at all,
        2566
        but she was allowed from the Reparation Claims Department £100 for the loss of her three sons in the war.
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Will the Noble Lord give me the date on which the first application to which he referred was submitted?
        Lord APSLEY: I find that I have not the date in this letter, but I will be pleased to get the information for the hon. Member. As I say, I have about 300 cases in hand, and I will have great pleasure in handing them over to the Board of Trade for consideration. I have no wish to attack the members of the Reparation Department themselves, especially as I know that they cannot reply in this House. I have no doubt that they are gentlemen who have done their work very efficiently, with great regularity and as best they could, and I do not attack them, but I wish to attack the whole system itself. It was started by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at the time when he went round the country telling us that he was going to hang the Kaiser and make Germany pay, and that led every man and woman who had claims of this nature to believe that they were going to get something like what they had lost in return. After that, it was put into the hands of a Royal Commission, and there it remained for some time, and now I am going to ask the Government to give us a statement telling us what they are going to do now that they are free to act in this matter.
        After all, something must be done. Whenever I or other hon. Members have raised this question, either at question time, or on the Motion for the Adjournment, we have received answers from the President of the Board of Trade, or from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, saying, first, that the matter was under consideration, then, that it was in the hands of the Royal Commission, now, that there is not enough money to go round, and that they have made a final award of £5,000,000 for the claims that were first sent in and £300,000 for belated claims, and that beyond that they are unable to say anything more. The mere fact that a claim is belated does not mean that it is not just, and I maintain that it is impossible for any Government Department, however excellent it may be, to go

        2567
        into these claims themselves, one by one, on their merits. If I may make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, it is that, if he wants to get these matters properly gone into in every locality, boards should be set up, consisting of men who really can judge these claims. I would suggest a member nominated by the employers, another member nominated by the unions, a Government official, and a country magistrate or some other entirely impartial authority to take the chair. I believe that if the whole thing is opened again and these claims are judged one by one, at last these men will get some sort of satisfaction.
        I do not wish to raise this question in any sense of hostility against the Government. I can almost hear the right hon. Gentleman getting up and saying that it is not his responsibility at all, and that the Governments before his were just as guilty. I have no doubt that that may be the case, but the whole thing was put into the hands of the Royal Commission, and that is the only reply we have been able to get. Now, however, something must be done, and I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give us an answer, saying that he is going to reopen the whole of this question and go into the whole of the payments again, to have it clone properly by boards, and that he is going to ask the Treasury, if necessary, to vote more money to meet these claims. I am sure he will find that they will require a great deal more money, and I cannot accept the answer that there is not enough money. After all, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour have both been playing ducks and drakes with the taxpayers' money for other matters, and they have had very little difficulty in getting doles from the Treasury, but this is a debt of honour which must be paid first, and they should ask the Treasury to guarantee that it will pay these claims fully and fairly.
        If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do that, and if he cannot reopen the question, or have a Parliamentary inquiry into it first, then I will ask him to get up—only I hope he will not—and say straight away, now in this House, so that every man who has a claim of this sort may know where he stands, "We are going to give no more money, £300,000 is all that the belated claims or
        2568
        further claims will get, and it is not going to be compensation at all, but we give you a solatium of about £5 a head." If we cannot get a guarantee of the nature I have indicated, I regret that my hon. Friend and I will have to take this to a Division and leave it to the Committee to decide. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, however, will dissociate himself from this policy of delay and dilly-dally which has been going on for so long, and will give us the Government's view as to what ought to be done, and what is going to be done, and let these men know clearly what their position is.
        Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The speeches which have been delivered indicate how widely spread is this grievance which we are discussing, and how many different classes in the community it touches. I venture, briefly, to plead on behalf of another section of the community, namely, the fishermen, who, during the War, suffered very severely, and to claim that they deserve special consideration also. I should like to emphasise what was said by the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth), that we are really faced here with a very widespread dissatisfaction and irritation and sense of injustice all over the country in respect of the manner in which these claims have been dealt with, and I agree with him that what is more important than anything else is that we should be able to satisfy all the claimants that they have had really fair consideration of the cases they have put forward. Up to this point, they certainly have not received the consideration which they deserve. With regard to the procedure taken before the Royal Commission was appointed, I suggest that it had the effect of misleading a very large number of people with regard to the possibilities of having their claims fully recognised and considered.
        Speaking for my own division, and for my own constituents who did put in claims, they were certainly under the impression, and I think they were justified in being under the impression, that this was a matter in which they were going to have at least a fair opportunity of arguing their claims, of knowing the grounds on which they were to be considered or disallowed, and of having the fullest opportunity of investigation. I cannot imagine a tribunal which was less likely to satisfy public opinion than the

        2569
        tribunal which was set up. There was nothing in its procedure or in the methods which it adopted to secure the confidence of the claimants. Quite the reverse. As a result, we have throughout the country a growing sense of dissatisfaction, which I think entitles us, not in any sense as bringing undue pressure upon this particular Government, because all parties are united in making this plea, to demand that something should be done at this stage, when the Royal Commission has reported, and when the belated claims are now limited to a fund of £300,000, which is quite insufficient.
        With regard to the proposals which have been made, I would strongly urge that we should, in the first place, have some form of inquiry which will satisfy all the claimants who are still living under that intense sense of injustice, as we know from almost daily communications from them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will really give consideration to this point, that there should be set up an inquiry, a Parliamentary inquiry if that be preferred, which would have the opportunity of investigating the whole position in relation to the question of reparation, in connection with the actual payments which have been made to claimants who have come forward, and in connection with the outstanding claims. It is really out of the question for us to get the reply that there is no fund available out of which these claims could be met. Let me remind the Committee that the Government made a profit of something like £11,000,000 on their air raid insurance scheme, money which might very well be set aside to deal with the claims of those who suffered damage owing to enemy action, and while we are quite willing to admit that the right hon. Gentleman has not got to carry the whole responsibility for this Government in connection with this matter, what we say is that he is now faced with the moment when something must be done if there is to be justice and satisfaction given to these claimants throughout the country.
        8.0 P.M.
        I hope we shall not get the answer we have had year after year. This matter has been raised in the House on a great many occasions, and some of us who are speaking on this subject to-night feel so strongly on it, knowing as we do the strong feeling of our constituents, that we are prepared to go very far in pressing on
        2570
        the Government the need for inquiry. In this matter it will not be sufficient for the hon. Gentleman in his reply simply to state, as has been, previously done, that the matter has been considered by the Royal Commission, that an additional sum has been awarded, and that is the end of the matter. So far as we are concerned, that is not going to be the end of the matter. We are determined that there is to be a final and a successful effort made to secure justice for these claimants. In the position he is, in a minority Government, the hon. Gentleman ought to give effect to the wishes of the Committee on a question of this kind. He ought to give effect to the views expressed on all sides that, on a matter of pure justice, we should see that British subjects are not denied the measure of justice which, under any other tribunal, they would have been afforded in putting forward their claim, and having it thoroughly investigated. Many of my constituents have come to me and stated that they cannot make head or tail of the communications they have received. There has been no information and no sympathy, which, in my judgment, has been one of the most unfortunate features. I went fully into individual hard cases. I can quote as many and as hard cases as the Noble Lord has quoted, and I am sure many hon. Members could do the same. We want seriously to press on the 'hon. Gentleman that we mean business on this occasion, and want a reply that will satisfy us.
        Mr. STURROCK: If there be one aspect of this matter which deserves consideration, it is the manner in which claims submitted for reparations have been dealt with by the Departments concerned. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) has said, they have certainly not been treated with any degree of sympathy or consideration whatsoever. I speak also for a class of men who went to sea, and suffered from enemy action. Those men put in claims as soon as they knew they were entitled to do so, and they have been fighting for years to get what is clearly their due. Those men did not only go to sea of their own free will, but, at the time they were doing so, they knew they were taking risks, and were encouraged by the Government of the day to keep going to sea to get sup-

        2571
        plies of fish to help the food supplies of the country. Undoubtedly, they took risks, and when their vessel is lost, and all their savings are gone, they are told, "Why did you not insure against the risks you took"? They did insure, but they discovered at a time of rapidly rising prices that they could never replace the boat with the insurance money they drew. If any one suggests that the owner of a small fishing craft on the East Coast was able to put up the premium on the sort of insurance which would have been necessary to secure for them a boat equal to the one sunk by enemy action, then, obviously, he knows nothing about the subject whatsoever. It is more than time that the Government informed the Committee, and the House in general, of its intention to do something tangible and rapidly. It is no good, as my hon. Friend has just said, saying to us that they will consider the matter further, and that they have no money with which to deal with these claims. It is an obligation, not merely on this Government, but a moral obligation and a debt of honour resting upon every Member of this House to see that justice is done to those men, who saw that justice was done to their country in the time of need.
        Viscount WOLMER: If I intervene in this Debate, it is only because the knowledge of the duties that were laid upon me at the Board of Trade in regard to this matter make me feel it my duty to say a word to-night. I have listened to the speeches of the two hon. Members who have, to a certain extent, criticised the action, and especially, I think, what they call the lack of sympathy of the Royal Commission whose Report we are now considering. I do not desire at the moment to enter into the fundamental question of the treatment that these unfortunate British nationals and sufferers received as the result of the policy adopted by the Government of the day in 1920, but I should like to say a word about the work of Lord Sumner and the Royal Commission. I want hon. Members to understand the position in which that Royal Commission was placed. They were appointed, in the first place, several years after the acts of damage and injury were committed. In the second place, they had to distribute a limited sum among a wholly unknown number of per-
        2572
        sons, and it soon proved, of course, that that limited sum was a totally inadequate sum, and really the task with which that Commission was faced was a totally impossible task. In any case, I would venture to suggest that no criticism ought to be made in this House against the members of the Royal Commission, because their first Report was accepted by the late Government, and their second Report has been accepted by the present Government. Therefore, it is to those quarters that that criticism should be addressed.
        We have heard criticism that the Royal Commission did not find it possible to hear individual claims, and to deal with individual plans in the sort of way, I suppose, claims for civil damage are dealt with by the Law Courts; and we have also heard the complaint—and a very understandable complaint it is—about the great delay that has taken place. But, really, those two complaints, as far as they go, answer each other. The Royal Commission had to deal with—if my memory serves me aright—some 40,000 claims. If they had been dealt with in the way the hon. Gentleman has just suggested, the Royal Commission would have been considering those claims for another 20 years, and the awards would have come out long after most of the claimants were dead. Therefore, it is not, in my view, right that any blame should be attached to the Royal Commission, and I should like to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame), the late President of the Board of Trade, has asked me to associate his name with that, and also to pay a personal tribute to the enormous labour of Lord Sumner and the Commission in this matter.
        Complaint has been made by the hon. Member of lack of sympathy. I suppose it is difficult to show sympathy in an official form, and official forms have to be used in cases like these. I can assure the hon. Member that Lord Sumner himself and the other members of the Royal Commission, and the members of the Reparation Claims Department of the Board of Trade, have had the greatest sympathy with these unfortunate claimants, and have worked long hours to do their best for them. It is neither the fault of the Royal Commission

        2573
        nor the fault of the permanent officials that hardship has ensued, and undoubted hardship there has been. The fault is because Germany has never been made to pay the damage she inflicted on our nationals. Whether Germany can pay or not is another matter, which I do not propose to go into to-night. But that is the fact—that the money has not been forthcoming. £5,000,000 was a totally inadequate sum—probably not more than 1/20th of the damage that had to be satisfied. That is the root cause of the difficulty. How the Government are going to meet that situation I do not know. The situation has not arisen as a result of the action of the present Government or as a result of any action by the late Government. It has arisen as a result of the method by which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and his Government attempted to deal with the question in 1920, and this anti-climax, this disillusionment of unfulfilled hopes, which never should have been raised, was absolutely inevitable from the moment he attempted to conciliate these unfortunate sufferers by setting aside a sum which was grossly inadequate for the purpose.
        Mr. T. HENDERSON: I want to add a word in support of the seamen who have been mentioned in this Debate, representing, as I do, a constituency where there are many sea-going men, and naturally, I have been called upon to raise their claims with the Board of Trade. I may say that if postcards were valuable, then the sea-faring people in my neighbourhood would be very rich indeed, because, in the main, that is all they have had out of it. I have gone personally to the Department. I have put up the case as represented to me by the individual seaman. I have never been successful in a single case, while knowing quite well that the case put up by the seaman was a sound one, inasmuch as he had been away from his country and failed to understand the date on which the notice expired, and his claim, therefore, was bound to become a belated one. We were told that every consideration would be given to seamen who were able to explain fully their inability to lodge a claim at the time stated. That may be true, but my experience has been that in not one single instance were they able to satisfy the Commissioners. I
        2574
        think we have got to recognise that the work done by the Commission was tremendous. We cannot blame them in the slightest. As the hon. Gentleman who spoke last said, we cannot blame the last Government, and there is no use in blaming the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), because it does not affect him in the slightest. If it did, then God help him! The sins that he has committed would entitle him to be submerged by the amount of blame he is entitled to receive. I am going to appeal to the Government on behalf——
        It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by the direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY (DOCK CHARGES) BILL [Lords]
(By Order).
Not amended, considered.
Motion made, and Question, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
A verbal Amendment made.
Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I desire to move
"That this Bill be recommitted, and that all petitions against the Bill deposited within three days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee."
This Bill is the outcome of a combination of a large number of railway companies. They have got a large number of Bills through this House. They are a powerful corporation or trust. I am opposing the Third Reading of this Bill in the interests of the public, and of my constituents, according to their complaints, and in order that the public may be adequately protected against the powerful corporation and the large trust. Looking at the Bill, I find on page 2 that charges may be levied, and from time to time altered by orders made by the Minister of Transport. I find that where any alteration

2575
has been made it has always been an increase. It seems to me that the only way of attempting to object to a powerful trust of this description is to oppose the Bill in this House, otherwise the public have no redress. There is no competition in this part of the country, because this Southern Railway Company bought up all competitors. The thing is all in their hands, except the House desires to alter it. The power given to enable the company to alter, levy or make rates means that the rates will be higher rates, and this is not in the interests of the public. Looking further, I find that it says:
"The company shall until the 1st day of October, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine——."
That means, if this Bill passes in its present state, that the people in that district have to put up with what these railway companies impose upon them. Reading further, I see:
"The Minister may if he thinks fit at any time after the fifteenth day of February, 1925, make an order revising all or any of such rates, dues, tolls, or charges as aforesaid."
That means that those in that part of the country that find that the charges about which they complain most bitterly must wait for a year before taking action, for, the charges once fixed, they must bear with for a year. Again I read:
"(2) No application may be made under this Section for a general revision of rates, dues, tolls, and charges for the time being authorised under this Act within 12 months after the date of an order."
Again, the public have to put up with the matter for a year once the Order is made. I have in my hand letters from various authorities, including the Whitstable Urban District Council, objecting generally to the Bill. The letter from Whitstable says, amongst other things, that there is a great deal of competition in the coal trade, and that the coal has suffered considerably from the heavy dues. This is not in the interests of the public. The rates ought to be brought to a reasonable level. That would be in the interests of the public, and in the interests really of the railway companies, and in the interests of my constituency. As I have said before, and repeat with your permission, where you have a large and powerful trust of this description the public have no redress against it,
2576
and it is for that reason that I am bringing this matter before the House. Again, the Whitstable and District Council asked that there should be a reduction in the dues in their port, and I have, also, letters from the Urban District Councils of Folkestone and Newhaven. I have letters, also, dealing with the matter. Before a Bill of this description passes the House, though we may not have had any great experience of what this company proposes to do in connection with certain docks, we do know, and have known for many years, how they have managed in that part: how their service has been antiquated and antedeluvian——
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting outside the scope of the Bill, which is dealing with dock charges.
Lieut.-Colonel RUDK1N: Of course, I bow to your ruling entirely, but may I mention that the docks are of no use without railways. You must have a railway to reach the dock. However, after what you have said, may I just mention two matters that are intimately connected, and that perhaps I am entitled to bring in—the docks by means of the railways——
Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be in order.
Lieut.-Colonel RUDK1N: I bow to your ruling. I turn now to the rates, and I think that these will be within the limit of the discussion. The South Eastern Railway have a charge for carrying goods and a charge for freightage——
Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill deals with harbours, docks and piers, and not with railways.
Lieut.-Colonel RUDK1N: I bow again to your ruling: but I understand that there is a rate for freightage, and also a rate on the railway, so that if you want to put your goods in a vessel you have to get them there through the railway which runs down to the docks. You could do this, I think, without any alteration of rates, and the concern is also under the management of one company. Therefore, under these circumstances, I would wish to say a few words about the rates which, I understand, are through rates both on the railway and to the vessel——
Mr. SPEAKER: No. The Bill deals with dock charges only.
Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I think I have said enough——[Laughter.] I have not finished yet. Perhaps when I have, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) will not cheer. I have, I think, said enough to show that this combine with no competition whatever in the district, is not in the public interest. I ask Members on all sides of the House who have the interests of fair play and the interests of the public at heart to consider the Bill, and support the Motion which I have put forward.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion suggested by the hon. And gallant Member is one that cannot be taken without giving notice on the Paper.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

SUPPLY.
Again considered in Committee.
[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1924–25.
    UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

      GRANTS FOR COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE BY ENEMY ACTION.
      Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on Consideration of Question,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £150;000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Grant in respect of Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action"
      Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £149,990, be granted for the said Service"
      Mr. T. HENDERSON: In concluding my remarks, I wish to make an appeal to the responsible Ministers. I notice that none of them are here, but if their reply is going to be what it has always been in the past that will not make much difference. I am appealing in the interests of the men who are recognised to be seagoing men. The general public look upon the sailor as a man not at all to be com-
      2578
      pared with those in other occupations, and he is very easy-going. I wish to ask the Government to do the thing that is perfectly just by these men, who suffer, and are prepared to suffer, in their calling in a way the average worker is not called upon to suffer. I ask them to do the right thing by the seamen, and not only give them an added sum but make the settlement as much as they possibly can.
      Mr. LOVERSEED: I merely rise in order to press forward the case of some people in my constituency who suffered through an air-raid in which a large number of cottages belonging to people of very small means were destroyed, and who put in applications for reparations, but up to this moment they have not received a single copper. In three of these cases the cottages were owned by men who lived in them, and some others were owned by very small men, and these cottages have not been put in order for the simple reason that the people themselves cannot afford to do the necessary repairs. Therefore, I suggest that these men should receive adequate compensation in order that they may put these cottages into a proper state of repair, and thus help to solve in a small way the present house shortage in that particular district.
      I have been told that the reason the compensation has not been paid to these small people is because in the Press of 31st December, 1915, a notice was published to the effect that no compensation would be paid to persons who suffered damage by an air raid unless they had previously taken out an insurance policy. Of course, the majority of small owners do not bother to take out insurance policies. The air raid took place on the 31st March, 1916, when the damage was done. I suggest that the Government should find some more money in order to meet what I believe is the general sense of the House, and I urge that all those who suffered the loss of their property, and in two cases loss of life without adequate compensation, should be given the utmost consideration by the Government. I suggest that the Minister should take this urgent matter into consideration, and see if some more money cannot be found to meet the hardships of these small people.
      Mr. HANNON: I wish to associate myself with the strong appeal which has been made to the Government to take a generous view of the very large number of sad cases that still survive the unfortunate War, and to whom no compensation or consideration of any kind has been given. I am certain that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will do everything that lies in his power to deal with these extremely difficult cases. In the Official Report of the Royal Commission in paragraph 15, particular attention is drawn to the cases of these applications. Members of this House have not been very critical in regard to the attitude of the Commission because it is recognised that they had a very difficult task, but in this particular paragraph they draw attention to the persons whose applications have not been received in time, and they point out various excuses and reasons that have been given why these claims had not been submitted to the Commission within the proper limit of time.
      We all know that in the remote districts of this country you cannot expect poor people who have suffered injury during the War to keep in touch with the daily papers, and to receive the advice which is necessary in order to draw up their claims within the necessary limit of time. Now the present Government have an ample opportunity of showing their sympathy for a very poor class by taking into consideration the closing paragraph of Lord Sumner's Commission. Many, alas, can only say that they are in want, and unless they were able to show that they had suffered definitely in one form or another, they came outside all consideration by the Government or the Commission. In their recommendations the Commission go on to say:
      "The Commission have felt that with the limited fund they had no right to be guided by such a consideration at the expense of other and more timely applicants. It must be remembered that any allowance in a belated life and health claim could only be made at the expense of property claims. The assessment of these claims has been postponed simply in order that earlier payments might be made to the former class of claimants."
      I think it is a pity to draw distinctions of that kind in the case of these claims. All along the Fast Coast from the North of Scotland, and particularly amongst our seafaring population, in many cases persons who made great sacrifices in the war have lost the whole of their little
      2580
      property, and in others the lives of those dearest to them, and they have not received one farthing of compensation at the expense of this or the previous Government. If there is one class of the community who really deserve the gratitude of the nation for their services in the War, it is the mercantile marine. No body of men has ever shown greater devotion to public duty, or has ever shown its anxiety to serve its country at a moment of most critical exigency, more than the mercantile marine of this great nation.
      I had a great deal to do with the mercantile marine during the War. It was my function to adminster a large number of voluntary funds, one of which related to immediate relief to the dependants of those who lost their lives through enemy action at sea, and I found again and again skippers of trawlers, masters of tramp steamers, and members of every grade of service in the mercantile marine, who, notwithstanding their dreadful experiences of being torpedoed, were perfectly willing to take the same risks again and go to sea in the service of their country. I remember particularly the case of one skipper from Cardiff who, after being torpedoed three times, was prepared to go to sea again in order that our supplies of food and raw material might be kept up at a moment that was most critical in our national existence. In the case of applications of that kind, from people of that quality, no Government ought to stand upon mere technicalities or formalities in giving full and generous consideration, and I do plead with the Parliamentary Secretary, and, above all, with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—who, I think, perhaps, after all, has as much to say as anyone else on the matter—to accede to the appeal that is being made here to-night for those persons who suffered so much during those tragic times in the War, so that they may have as full and generous and liberal consideration from His Majesty's Government as may be possible.
      When I think of the millions that have been made out of the War by sheer barbarous profiteering on the part of unscrupulous people, when I see people rolling about in motor cars, I think to myself of the thousands of seamen with whose families I was in contact during

      2581
      the War, families who suffered so much while their nearest and dearest were serving the country at sea; and I say that these claims ought not to be left out of account at a moment when we are making some recognition of those who served us so well in the past. I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to urge this upon the Government. The appeal that has been made here to-night not made merely upon humanitarian grounds; it is made upon the ground of giving back some measure of thankfulness, some manifestation of gratitude, to people who did so much and sacrificed so much for this country at the mast critical time in its history.
      Mr. HARDIE: I want to draw attention to what is generally known as the belated claim. The belated claim as it is called, resulted in the past from the fact that, because of the general movement from place to place, the men concerned were not kept in touch with the Government papers and demands, and could not get their claims in in proper time. I have a great many claims under my charge. One of them dates back to December, 1922, and I am still being told that claims in that category have not yet been reached. One might imagine, from a statement like that, that we in this country were so short of clerical workers that it was impossible to get through the work of these belated claims. I do not know why they should be called belated claims, since in no sense can they be said to be the fault of those who were unable to get in touch with what was taking place, and I hope that this Government will deal with this question in a very different way from the preceding Government.
      I want to draw attention to a practice which I hope this Government is going to cause to be discontinued. I refer to the method of payment. I remember one case in December, 1922, of a man whose claim was not a belated claim, but who had his award granted. In his case, however, the payment of the award was not to be in money, but in kind. When I arrived at that gentleman's house, I discovered that he was six months in arrear with his rent, but the factor had allowed him to continue the occupancy of his house on the basis of the grant that had been made. His grocer, also,
      2582
      was advancing food on the strength of the grant already made. When I started the fight, on returning to this House, to get to know why it was that only kind should be paid to this type of claimant, I got no satisfactory answer. Here was the man, with his wife and family, credited by a Government in the most stupid form. In fact, that carried an insult that ought to be met by force. It is an insult to men who have taken the risks that these men took, to say that, while they can be trusted in the outposts of the nation in its distress, they cannot be trusted with a few pounds that come to them, not as a reward, but as compensation for what they lost. It is an insult to the men of this country who took these risks.
      What happened in that case? Letter followed letter for 18 months. It seems that the Department are willing to spend money on stationery and typing before they will do the humane thing by handing out to this man the money that he rightly deserves. He was six months behind with his rent, and three months' behind with his grocer's book, and yet we had the previous Government sitting by and saying, "We cannot alter this." When I got the case, with dozens of others, written about for the last time, I had to intimate to the Government at that time that here were men about to be thrown on to the street, not because they had not something with which to pay, for they had had their award, but simply because some man somewhere in the system had said, "'You cannot trust this type of man with any ready money."
      Mr. ALEXANDER: I rather think my hon. Friend is getting away from the point of this Debate, because we have had no case at all, under the £5,000,000, where a man assessed has been paid in kind. They have all been paid in cash.
      Mr. HARDIE: I am not getting away, and I will produce the correspondence I had with the previous Government. I am talking not only of one case but of many cases. In the end, when I got a letter from the last Government to say those men were going to be ejected from their homes, they decided to break the law in this way. The men were asked to call at the Adelphi Hotel, Glasgow, and they had to produce their rent books and their grocer's books, and after a long consultation with those men they tried first of all

      2583
      to get an interview with me to see, if they paid the rent direct to the factor, whether that would do. I refused on the ground that that man has a right to the money. If it is his, let him have it, and let him spend it. In the end I got the money for those men.
      Mr. N. MACLEAN: You were lucky.
      Mr. HARDIE: I was lucky, but I had to fight very hard for it. If it is a question of bringing evidence, I still have that evidence, because it is something of great value to show that when the War was on they made every kind of promise. "When you come back we will see you right. You are saving the nation. We will see that you are properly cared for." This morning I got a letter from another belated claim—
      "Dear Sir,—I have written to you seven times since December, 1922. I am still without any word as to my claim."
      I go to the Department and I am told that claim has not been reached yet. It would be far more honest of Governments in the past if they had said to these people, "We are not going to pay," than to go on with this kind of stupid promise, always keeping the men hoping against hope for that which is their own I am not going to discuss for a moment whether this money is to come from Germany or anywhere else. That is not the subject we are discussing. We are discussing certain responsibilities assumed without conditions as to payment from Germany. It is the nation's pledge and I am hoping this Government is going to get rid of these belated claims. If there are claims put in which are not correct, tell the men straight out that they have no claim. Do not call any other claim a belated claim. Call it the claim of a man who has done his duty and you will never regret it.
      Mr. GILCHRIST THOMPSON: I should like to add a few words to the appeal which has been made on all sides of the House. The cases which have come under my notice have been chiefly those of the fishermen of the south coast of England and were cases in which trawlers had been torpedoed by enemy action in defiance of the Hague Convention. I think the cases of these men should be considered in rather a special way. I have seen letters written by the
      2584
      Minister of Agriculture during the War to the owners of fishing trawlers appealing to them to continue fishing operations to preserve and maintain the food supplies of the country when there was dire need for that to be done. They continued fishing in spite of the risk. I am mentioning only Brixham, with which I am familiar. No fewer than 40 trawlers were torpedoed by enemy action. It has been said that many of these ships belonged to wealthy companies and not to the local men. I find that seven of these belonged to companies outside Brixham. The remainder were owned and worked by the working fishermen themselves. They were share boats. The whole of the loss falls upon that fishing port. Reference has been made to the dissatisfaction caused by the way these claims have been considered. No local inquiry was made, as far as I can discover, in any case, and again and again one comes across cases entirely similar in character in which claims for similar amounts have been dealt with in widely dis-similar ways. A case was brought before me only a few weeks ago, which I have referred to the Department concerned, of the skipper of a trawler who put in his claim for the loss of a trawler and has received nothing and the case of his mate who put in a claim for £12 for personal effects lost and received £29. Cases like that, when they become known locally, cause dissatisfaction. The amounts awarded on the average seem to have been about 5 to 10 per cent. of the claims made. In the case of Brixham the fishing trawlers have what may be called a devastated area of their own. Owing to enemy action during the War there are some 150 wrecks of torpedoed ships along the coast line in the fishery ground which is ordinarily visited by the Brixham trawling fleet, and last year it was estimated that no less than £5,000 worth of trawling gear was lost owing to that cause. For that there is no kind of compensation whatever. This damage is directly attributable to the War and is going on every day and is likely to continue.
      I do not suppose any class of sufferers would attempt to contend that it is possible to obtain equality of sacrifice. The fishermen with whom I am familiar, being independent people, would be the last to appeal for any special treatment, but I suggest that their claim is a very

      2585
      strong one and it should appeal especially to the Government, for the loss is going on continually. So long as due compensation is not paid the fishing industry concerned will be deteriorated. We owe a debt of honour to these men and we also owe it to ourselves that an industry which has suffered pecuniarily from this cause shall not be allowed to go to pieces owing to the fact that those who have lost trawlers and ships and gear are unable, so long as there is inadequate compensation, to make good that loss and to replace those ships. It has been said that these owners should have insured; but they could only have insured—in most cases they did—up to two-thirds of the pre-War value of the ships. It is clear that compensation of that amount would be quite inadequate to replace the ships. I content myself by stating these facts and making one further appeal to the Government to come to the help of one of the fundamental industries of this country, by providing employment for a class of men who represent one of the finest elements in our country but who, so long as compensation is not given to them, are actually faced with the disappearance of their means of livelihood. This is an appeal which should not only strike our sympathy, but should come home in a very practical way to the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour, who are attempting to set on foot schemes to provide work for the unemployed. These two things are very closely bound up together. I appeal, as hon. Members in all parts of the House have appealed, for further consideration of these cases.
      Mr. CASSELS: As the representative of a division east of London which suffered a good deal during the air raids in war time, I want to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth), who raised this discussion, in his appeal to the Government to do something in the matter of reparation for damage caused by enemy action. This matter has been thoroughly mishandled by all Governments that have had anything to do with it. During the war, all sorts of things were done by the enemy which were never anticipated by the most intelligent Government Department that ever handled a single document connected with the war, and among the unanticipated things were Zeppelin raids.
      2586
      I wonder whether the representatives of the Government who are going to answer in a few minutes, with sympathy, ever take their minds back to those dark days and nights that we used to have during the air raids in and around London. Do they realise that there are large numbers of people who suffered as a result of those air raids who have had no sort of adequate compensation from the nation for what they suffered? It is said that this has nothing to do with the Government. It is said that compensation cannot be legally claimed. Let us grant all that. Is there anybody, either a Member of the present Government or a Member of the late Government, who would be prepared to say that, immediately after one of those air raids, he would have stood up and have addressed the people of this country, and have said, "No matter what you have suffered during these air raids, the nation is not going to take responsibility. We will appoint a Royal Commission. We will limit the Commission in the money they have at their disposal. We will handicap them by every means we can, and when your claims are made you will be lucky if you get 5 or 10 per cent. of what you think you ought to get." That is not the proper way to deal with this matter.
      It is said that some of these claims for damage to property have been dealt with, that the claimants have been told that they might have insured against the loss, and that, inasmuch as they did not insure against loss, the claim is not one that can be considered by the Commission. I have yet to hear that it was one of the penalties of failure to insure, or that it was ever made known that it would be one of the penalties that persons who suffered damage would get no compensation. Large numbers of the people concerned were not even familiar with the possibility of insuring against the risk which every one of us in this country took. Large numbers of these people were poor people to whom the premiums for such insurance were impossible, and to turn round and say to these people, "You might have insured, and as you have not insured we cannot consider your claim," is surely the wrong way of dealing with these problems which have arisen as a result of the War.
      9.0 P.M.
      The Noble Lord the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) said that it was no use to blame the Commission.

      2587
      because the Commission had to deal with a limited sum which was totally inadequate to enable them to deal with their task. That is the very thing of which we are now complaining. We say that this was a matter for the nation as a whole, and inasmuch as we have had in this House complaints from representatives of the mercantile marine, representatives of the fishermen and representatives of civilians who, while not taking part in the War, were bound to exist in this country and have suffered damage, surely the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able on behalf of a Labour Government to say that they are prepared to do what the Coalition Government and what the Conservative Government never did. That would be a fine cry to make, and perhaps the Government could make it a true cry for once by saying, "We will scrap all this business of the Commission. We will put a full stop to it. We will appoint a court of inquiry to investigate all these claims, whether they be belated or not We will see how much it will cost the public adequately to compensate the people who have suffered this damage, and then find out whether the House of Commons, which is representative of the nation, will provide the money." If the House of Commons is prepared to provide the money, then it will be an interesting task for the Government to find it.
      Inasmuch as the Government can find money for schemes which, perhaps, have not as much universal support in the House as this scheme, perhaps they will, for once in a way, find the money for a scheme which will have universal support. Everyone realises that the Commission had to work an impossible thing. No one has suggested that the scheme which has been in existence up to now is worthy either of sympathy or of support. I have listened to the Debate on this question from its start. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has sat on the Treasury Bench Sphinx-like, not giving any indication as to what is the important pronouncement he is going to make. I can only hope that he will be able to make a really first-class, satisfactory announcement, to indicate to the people who are following this Debate with keen interest and personal concern,
      2588
      that, at last, there has arisen in the land a Government which is prepared sympathetically, and more than sympathetically, financially, to consider all these claims, to investigate them judicially, and when an award is made, to pay.
      Mr. NIXON: I ask the indulgence of the Committee in rising to address it for the first time. Nearly everybody to whom I have spoken has told me that on the occasion of my maiden speech I should address the House upon a subject of which I know something. I venture to address the House on this subject of damage caused by enemy action. There is a phase of the subject which deserves the attention of the Government which has not been mentioned in the Debate. So far as human suffering is concerned, the major portion of it fell upon poor people, and it fell upon them in the main because their homes were near the factories or works which the enemy aircraft sought to attack. A town in which I live was attacked on the famous 31st January, 1916, and there were three workmen killed. By some means or other two of the widows of these men have received certain sums—I think one received £628 and another received £120—but the third widow has received nothing, and she is the mother of seven or eight children. At the time of the air raid she was an expectant mother, and her husband was killed in the course of proceeding from his work to get to his wife in the particular circumstance.
      This widow, who probably endured the most suffering of the three, was left out of account by the Commission when dealing with claims of this character. I desire to point out to the Government what I regard as a very logical conclusion. That is that once the principle of compensation is admitted at all, then the Government should treat all the cases with the same consideration, and if it was right that two of these people should receive consideration, then there can be no excuse for a refusal in the third case. Therefore, I shall consider that my first Parliamentary effort can claim to be called successful, to some extent, if it is the means of directing attention to the uneven results that have followed from the administration of the system of paying compensation which has hitherto existed.
      Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I want in a very few minutes to deal with some of the administrative points that have been raised in connection with the administration of these payments. The major portion of the Debate has been on the question of the adequacy of the sums which have been voted for this particular purpose. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will speak later in the Debate, and will deal with the questions which have been raised in that particular connection. References have been made in the Debate to delay in dealing with the administration of the sums which have been voted by Parliament. As far as the present administration of the Board is concerned, I mean the Government administration, we have not much concern with that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) first announced the decision of his Government to make a grant in May, 1920, so that most of the period about which the delay is alleged had elapsed before the present Government came into power. But I agree entirely with the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) as to the enormous difficulty of the work taken over by the Department in dealing with the question, and also by the Royal Commission in getting the work proceeded with.
      I do not think that hon. Members always realise the extent of the problem that faces the Department and the Royal Commission. The claims that came in probably numbered 70,000 separate claims, all of which had to be gone into in detail and assessed. The variety of them, and the number of world conditions they affected—because they related to all parts of the world where enemy action took place—made it exceedingly difficult to deal with the matter, and involved, moreover, the setting up of very intricate tables, and test cases, and adjudication of a very varied and difficult character. Both my right hon. Friend and myself have been concerned about the question since we went to the Board of Trade, and have made detailed inquiries as to the administration inside the Department, and I am bound to say that the Department and the Sumner Commission ought to receive the thanks of the House for the way in which they have tackled the matter.
      2590
      A question has also been raised with regard to the treatment of the category of claims which are described as belated claims. We have at present some 29,000 claims which were received after the date had been fixed. I do not think that it can be argued that the step taken by the Sumner Commission to fix a date was not a sound one. This House had voted a sum of £5,000,000 to be administered by the Commission. They had to assess the claims, and they could not possibly, after they had assessed the damage, scale down the amount to be paid in individual cases until they knew the total number of claims which were going to be received and the amount of the assessments given upon the claim. The date was first fixed in February, 1922. That was two years after the first announcement was made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. But because of representations, which were made in this House and in other directions, the date was further extended until December and claims were admitted until December, 1922.
      The attitude adopted by Lord Sumner's Commission as to whether those claims ought to rank or not is set out in the second report of the Committee which has been accepted by the Government. But Lord Sumner pointed out, quite clearly that the whole question was one of ex gratia payments and that there was no legal right to this money. The Government have granted in addition to the first £5,000,000, a sum of £300,000 on behalf of those who did not send in their claims in time. There was some reference in the debate to what has been done since the Government announced their decision to give Another £300,000 for these belated claims. If they were going to administer an ex gratia payment of £300,000, they would have to do it in one of two ways. They would either have to have those claims assessed on the same basis as had been adopted by the Sumner Commission, or they would have to agree upon a flat rate payment, which would be spread over the whole of the claims which were allowed as good claims in the belated claims category. It appeared to the Government that it would be very unfair to assess the belated claims on a different scale from that which had been allowed by the Sumner Commission and to adopt a flat rate payment would make it very unfair,

      2591
      and every one of the claims in the belated claims category had therefore to be separately examined and assessed.
      We extended the date up to which claims might be received to rank for treatment as belated claims up to 2nd June, but without waiting for that date to pass, the Department immediately set about assessing the claims which had been received. Up to the present we have had effective claims numbering over 25,000. The work is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible. Over 6,000. of the claims have been assessed during the past few weeks, and, as we have announced, it is hoped that the assesment of the belated claims will be completed within the next two or three months, and a settlement made within the sum which has been granted by Parliament for the purpose. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) suggested that this process could be expedited by the employment of more clerks, but the very nature of the work to be done, if you are to have anything like a fair measure of justice done to the people who make claims, requires that you must leave the assessment of the claims to people who have experience of the work and know how to handle each case on its individual merits, and be able to apply to a particular case the proper and effective scale which was laid down by the Sumner Commission.
      The Noble Lord the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) complained about the treatment of some claims in which he was interested. He first referred to the case of a seaman in Southampton, wino said that he had sent in a claim in time, that he had had four acknowledgments, and had then been told that his claim was too late. My experience of the work of the Department makes that a very difficult case to understand. I hope that they Noble Lord will be able to send to me the certified date on which the claim was submitted, so that we may be able to check these statements. Another point raised was that one of the seamen in whom the Noble Lord was interested had submitted a claim for £849, and had received only £65, in instalments of £30 and £35. The Noble Lord forgot, as many hon. Members forget, when thinking about the amount assessed in that way upon claims, that this fund, which was set up by the Coalition Government, was by no means the only fund available to people who had
      2592
      sustained enemy damage. I do not want to go too far in that direction. No doubt the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give fuller details. Where a claim for a large sum like that has been submitted, the people who assess the claim have always had to take into account, not merely the bare claim, but what has already been received by the claimant from the other funds available.
      Captain Viscount CURZON: In that connection, does the hon. Gentleman refer to charitable funds or Government funds?
      Mr. ALEXANDER: I refer quite specifically to schemes which were set up by the Coalition Government, the war risks compensation scheme and the like, under which pensions were awarded and are still being paid, altogether apart from the Fund which the Committee is now discussing. There was another point mentioned, and that was that many of the claimants felt aggrieved because in reply to many communications they received only a printed postcard saying that their letters would have attention. We ought to recognise the great difficulty of the Department in dealing with thousands and thousands of letters, but my right hon. Friend, since we have been in charge of the administration, has arranged that, in cases where the claimant is told that his claim is not admitted for the full amount or is refused, a letter is to be sent to him telling him on what ground the claim is turned down or on what ground it is very considerably reduced. I think that the steps taken in that way will considerably lighten the post-bags of some hon. Members who represent the districts concerned. I do not think it is necessary to take up more time on points of administration. I would urge the Committee to remember the enormous task which confronted both the Department and the Royal Commission, and to accept my assurance that, having looked into the administration of this Department ourselves, we are satisfied that very excellent work has been done and is being done, and that we shall be able, with the present arrangements, to get a very satisfactory administration of the further sum which is now being voted by Parliament for belated claims.
      Sir ROBERT HORNE: The Committee will readily realise that I have not risen to make any attack upon the Depart-

      2593
      mental administration to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred. As an old President of the Board of Trade I gladly add my quota as to the skill and tact with which the Departmental work is done and the energy and sympathy which are exhibited in dealing with the vast multitudes of claims, not all of them genuine or very good, that come before the Department for the purpose of being determined. I would also like to say that the Sumner Commission, in a very difficult position, restricted as it was in the amount of money which it had to dispense, has discharged the task which was laid upon it to the admiration of us all. I am not certain that any person here, even the most critical, would be ready in such circumstances to find a more active means of dealing with the situation with which they were confronted than that Commission itself discovered. Accordingly, it is not a question of Departmental administration or the work of the Sumner Commission upon which I shall address the Committee. Before I pass to the special point for which I have risen, may I say that the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth), who started this discussion, raised a question which the Government must now review for itself. There have been many speeches from all parts of the Committee which have disclosed conditions, some of which undoubtedly, even to an old President of the Board of Trade, are new—difficulties and hardships which had not certainly brought themselves to our mind at that time sufficiently, or, at least, to the same extent as they have done to-day. My own feeling is that the Government must not be content to stand where we stood in the short experience that we had of this great matter. It is now their duty to review the whole position, to consider whether everything is being done to remedy the hardships under which many of these people are suffering.
      The point to which I wish to refer is concerned with a branch of this subject; which has not yet been touched upon. There are certain people outside Great Britain who also deserve the serious consideration of the Government. I dare say it is well known to everybody present that very large numbers of our fellow subjects have suffered grievously through enemy action not within this island but outside it. There were, for example,
      2594
      numbers of British people who, in pursuit of British trade, had settled and were carrying on business in such French towns as Lille, Roubaix, Ghent and Armentieres, and many of them in Belgium as well as France. These people were carrying on their active trade, which was of the greatest possible advantage to this Kingdom. They were the people who were enabling our people here to sell their goods because they were the merchants. They had set up engineering shops. Others had gone in for the spinning trade and there was a very large business being done in English textiles. Some of them we know only too well suffer very grievously to-day. A very considerable part of the hardship from which they are suffering now is due to the damage which they incurred during the War. Some of these people came back to fight for us. Many of them stayed to carry on their business even as against the German incursions. Large numbers were interned in Germany and suffered all the agonies which so many of them had to endure in that country.
      What happened to them when they returned to the places where they had been accustomed to carry on? They found their workshops wrecked. They found their machinery had entirely disappeared. They found their buildings damaged, in many cases beyond repair. They were not in a position, with all their fortunes gone, to start again. I ask the Committee to contrast in the result the position of these people with ours, whose case was not a bit more worthy of consideration. Take a British citizen who was carrying on business in Germany. If he suffered damage, his opportunity for compensation was obtained from the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal sitting in England, which assesses the amount of compensation to which he is entitled and which is liquidated out of German property in England, and, accordingly, he gets his compensation. Take, by way of contrast again, the position of the Frenchman or Belgian who has been working in France alongside our own citizens. They have not been neglected and have, in most cases, obtained large sums in compensation. But the British citizen in France has had nobody really to look to for the repair of the damage which he suffered, and in the effort to carry on his trade to-day in com-

      2595
      petition with competitors in France he has not had sufficient money to re-establish his business or repair his battered workshops or retrieve the machinery previously there.
      This is a great disadvantage, not merely to the people who suffered, but in many respects has led to the killing of our trade in France. In view of that I urge the Government to take these cases into their immediate consideration. The French Government passed a law, I think in 1919, which provides that compensation should be available to such citizens if the claim were put forward by the Government to which the foreigner who made the claim belonged. This arrangement, as hon. Members may imagine, entirely failed to work, because you can only get compensation if there were reciprocal claims by French and British. But in view of the fact that there was no French property in this country, or very little, that had suffered any damage, there was no fund from which compensation could be paid. In 1920 the present right hon. Member for West Birmingham provided a fund of £5,000,000, which has been used by the Commission since for the compensation of people who could put forward their claims. I do not think it could be imagined at that time that an adequate idea was held as to what the amount of these claims should be, or whether this fund would go far in meeting them, but it was an attempt certainly to do something at that time with our inadequate knowledge and experience. Now it would appear that this fund does not touch more than the fringe of the subject. I know it is certain to be said that to provide any more funds is going to put an additional tax on the British taxpayer. That is the thing I should be very unwilling myself to do, but when I see the kind of things the present Government do with the money which is available, it is intensely forced upon me that they have passed over, very unjustly, people with a far more adequate claim than many of those to whom they have dispensed the surplus which they inherited. [interruption.] There was a fund actually being provided by Germany in the shape of the duty which was being levied on their goods exported here. [Interruption.] I know the hon. Member takes a very rigid and pigheaded view
      2596
      upon this topic.[HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"]
      Mr. ALSTED: Is it in order to refer to a hon. Gentleman as being pigheaded?
      Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Germans were providing the money. Is it not a fact that right up to the end, until this Government came in, this money was not being provided at all?
      Sir R. HORNE: On the contrary. My hon. and gallant Friend is misapprehending the point I am making. There was a fund coming from Germany in the shape of reparations out of the duty levied on German goods. There was a very considerable sum—about, £8,000,000 a year—which was being derived from the impost upon German goods. If I am exaggerating in saying £8,000,000, I am perfectly certain it was not less than £5,000,000.
      Mr. MACLEAN: That covers the cost of the Army of Occupation.
      Sir R. HORNE: If the Government do not feel themselves to be in a position to find more funds, if they are going to tell the Committee they are either unwilling or unable to find further funds for the purpose of meeting this very necessary object—[Interruption.] It has been proposed to them that payment should be made in a way which the Government certainly could control. The French people in whose territory these sufferings have been incurred really are entrusted, so far as the Treaty of Versailles is concerned, with providing compensation for people who have suffered in their territory, and they are, indeed, providing compensation for Belgians who suffered hardships in the same way as our people. I suggest that payment should be made in French Bonds, which should be set off against the sum which France at the present time owes Great Britain. That would be a perfectly fair way of meeting these particular claims, and it seems to me it is the very least which can be done by this Government and by the French Government, to satisfy the people who suffered on French territory.
      Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman seems very anxious to secure compensation for British merchants and manufacturers in France whose property

      2597
      was destroyed during the War, but why did he not put that argument before the Coalition Government of which he was Chancellor of the, Exchequer?
      Sir R. HORNE: There is a history attached to this. At that time we were very anxious to find the extent of the genuine claims in connection with this matter, and all the avenues had not been exhausted with a view to finding out what might possibly be done. What I am now putting forward is, I think, a plan worthy of consideration for obtaining redress, and it is no answer to inquire of me why did I not propose it to the Government of which I was a member. It may be I was wrong and unenlightened. Let this Government show how capable they can be. I do not object to them getting the credit for doing it if only they will recompense these people who have suffered. There is one other point. I think all of these people who have been damaged through enemy action in the ways that has been described to-day should have an assurance from the Government that whatever is received in the shape of reparations from Germany should be put into a fund out of which payment can be made to them. I would like to have an assurance from the Government that they will assist these people who to-day are suffering very great hardship, and enduring it sometimes with very great difficulty. Let them have an assurance which will sustain them in the difficulties with which they are confronted. Many of them are in a state of despair. They have been maintaining our trade and reputation wherever they have been, and at least they should get sympathetic continuous and persistent help from the Government of this country.
      Mr. ALSTEAD: I want to place before the Committee the claims of the small owners whose property was damaged during the period of the War. To-day I ventured to address a question to the President of the Board of Trade as to how many of the claims made by such people as were uninsured at the time the damage was done are still outstanding. The reply I received stated that no fewer than 518 of these claims are still unmet. I know the Government take the view that since the owners of this damaged property failed to avail themselves of the provisions made for anti-aircraft insurance their claims are not worthy of consideration. If that is the view of the
      2598
      President of the Board of Trade I hope he will reconsider it. The circumstances obtaining at the time these air raids were prevalent rendered it almost impossible in many cases for owners of a certain class of property, however willing they might be, to take out these insurances. I know the returns from cottage property were so low that the owners could not find the money necessary for even small premiums. I contend that the owners of this class of property had a perfect right to expect that the Government of the country would see to it that any damage caused by enemy action would carry with it compensation, irrespective of whether such properties were or were not insured against enemy action.
      I was astonished to hear the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) suggest at this time of the day that the reparations duties ought to have been retained so that the revenue from those duties could be used to meet these particular claims. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in this House, and better than most people, that the duties were, in fact, being paid by the purchasers of the goods on which they were levied in this country, and the manufacturers of Lancashire realised that, for the results of the last election in the Manchester area proved by the return of Free Trade Liberals that that was the view they entertained. However that may be, I was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, holding as he has held for so long such a responsible position in connection with the financial affairs of this country, should now ask a Government, new in office, shackled as it is by the blunders of his party and of the Government to which he belonged, to do this thing. I am going to make a suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade. A good deal has been said about the efficiency of the administration of this particular Reparations Commission. No one has attempted to dispute the fact that this Department has proved its efficiency in many ways, but in many other ways it has shown by its failure to meet legitimate cases that all is not as will as hon. Members have tried to make out. In the interest of these poor people who suffered from enemy aircraft this damage during the War, and had their property

      2599
      wiped out—as much was wiped out in the town which I represent, for there the properties are still untenanted and will not be tenanted until the owners are paid compensation which will enable them to put the houses into tenantable repair again—surely these people who suffered this damage have a right to expect that the Government of this country should stand by them and see that money is forthcoming to repair their property. Those of us who are not accustomed to the devious ways of Ministers of State took it that there would be no question that, the damage having been caused by enemy action, the money would be forthcoming to put the property back again into reasonable repair. Because of the distress in which these people find themselves, I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary to take up the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and show to the country that this Government have serious regard for their moral obligations and will see that these people receive the compensation to which they are justly entitled.
      Mr. MACLEAN: I was struck by the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), and was interested in the latter-day suggestion he brought forward, not so much in the interests of the people of this country who suffered losses in this country, or of the members of the Mercantile Marine, many of whom lost all they had after being submarined two, three and four times, as in other interests. It is interesting to find six years after the War has ended, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and deputy-lieutenant to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George) coming forward with a suggestion of this kind, mainly for business men in France.
      Sir R. HORNE: That suggestion is surely very unworthy of the hon. Member. I was not omitting to consider the claims of people in this country at all; on the contrary I began my speech with a reference to them, but the matter had been dealt with at some length, and this is a discussion in which one must take up one part of the subject and deal with it.
      Mr. MACLEAN: I do not mean that is the sole interest of the right hon. Gentle-
      2600
      man in this matter, and if it seems to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that I imputed such motives as he indicates, I withdraw any such imputation. What I wished to bring out was that it was interesting to find the right hon. Gentleman having been four years in office, in a Government with the largest majority which any Government has possessed in the last 50 years of British political history, coming forward with a suggestion of this kind now. It shows surely that it is a suggestion which has only recently occurred to him; a suggestion which did not occur to him while he had the power to put it into operation. It shows very clearly that other very valuable suggestions may crop up a year hence among Members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party or of other parties. The manufacturers, for whom the right hon. Gentleman put forward this case, who had businesses in France and who went back to find their premises destroyed, their machinery gone and their carefully worked-up businesses ruined, should, it is said, come within the scope of the £5,300,000 which has been granted to cover damage by enemy action.
      Sir R. HORNE: They do come within it, and they have had a certain amount of compensation out of that fund.
      Mr. MACLEAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. Surely those who had factories and business premises destroyed in those areas of France which are described as devastated areas, should come within the scope of the fund which is restoring the devastated areas. Consequently I fail to see how such individuals can come within the scope of two funds.
      Sir R. HORNE: They do not
      Mr. MACLEAN: I am quite willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's word that they do not, but as their property was destroyed in France undoubtedly they should come within the scope of the fund for the restoration of the devastated areas and if our representatives on the various Committees and Commissions which have dealt with this matter have not seen to it that these Britishers were placed within the scope of that fund, as they were entitled to be, then they did not do their business in the proper way. We are asked now to re-

      2601
      view the whole position. How long are we going to continue reviewing the position? The hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Cassels) made some suggestion about scrapping the inquiries which have been made and setting up a new inquiry.
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: There has not been an inquiry.
      Mr. MACLEAN: The Parliamentary Secretary says that the cases are being investigated at present. Hon. Members want the procedure to be scrapped.
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. Member referred to "scrapping the inquiry," and there has been no inquiry.
      Mr. MACLEAN: I understand these cases are at present under the consideration of the Board of Trade. Otherwise why are we discussing the matter on a Board of Trade Vote?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: We are not discussing a Board of Trade Vote.
      Mr. MACLEAN: I should have said that the Sumner Commission was sitting upon these cases and I understood that the hon. Member opposite wanted to scrap the inquiry which is being made.
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: Not at all.
      Mr. MACLEAN: At any rate, I understood the hon. Member for West Leyton to suggest that we should have another inquiry and that we should start de novo.
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I intervene?
      Mr. MACLEAN: I am not taking the point made by the hon. Member for Thanet, but the point made by the hon. Member for West Leyton. I thought the hon. Member for West Leyton was in his place, but I see I am mistaken. So far as I understood it, the suggestion was that we should scrap such inquiries as are being made and institute a new inquiry into the matter. I take from that suggestion that it is wished to bring what are called belated claims into the same category as the other claims which have received part of the £5,000,000.
      Lord APSLEY: I do not know whether the hon. Member is alluding to me.
      Mr. MACLEAN: There appears to be a very fine esprit de corps among hon. Members on the other side. They are prepared to shoulder each other's burdens. It was not always so when the Die-Hards
      2602
      were in existence. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about last night?"] Last night we were fighting for what we have always believed in. I understand that these belated claims are only going to receive £300,000. That is the new sum which is going to be paid by the Government, and £5,000,000 is to be granted in respect of other claims received before a particular date. The Parliamentary Secretary gave us some figures and said there were 50,000 eases which had been admitted to participate in the £5,000,000, and that of the belated claims that had been received there were 29,000 cases to share in the £300,000 granted by the Government. I consider that this method of dealing with these claims and the money allocated is most inadequate and also unjust, and there is an inequality about it that ought not to be accepted by this Committee. If you have 50,000 cases receiving a share of the £5,000,000, it amounts to about £100 each, whereas the 29,000 belated cases, if an equal distribution is given, will receive only £10 each, and very probably some of these belated claims are cases that are worse than some of the claims that were admitted prior to the closing date. I am not blaming this Government, which is saddled with a very bad heritage handed down to it, but this Government ought to do something more for the belated claimants. I have scores of cases in my constituency—difficult cases. I have had cases where people were being turned out of their house, and, owing to my personal representations to the house agent that I was trying to fight their case, to get the money to which they were entitled, the agent was good enough to allow them to remain, on the strength of those representations. Some of those people have now had to be put out of their houses. They have been trying to get the money to which they are entitled. One individual was torpedoed three times. He was in the water three times and lost his all, and all that he can get is one of these postcards.
      It is trying people's patience, and the patience of Members of this House, who get these people coming to them constantly when they appear in the constituencies, and who receive letters from them stating the whole of the writers' domestic affairs, and asking if anything can be done to lift them out of this difficult condition. When we send these

      2603
      letters on and make our representations to the Ministry, and the Ministry before this, and the one before that, it is always the same thing—a long procession of postmen delivering these old post cards, acknowledging receipt of our letters. The matter is getting beyond a joke. There are tragedies going on in hundreds of homes in this country to-day because of the niggardliness and the procrastination of the last three Governments. It is time this question was brought to an end. The Department's administration may be as efficient as it can possibly be, but if it fails to give these people the money to which they are entitled, it is not an efficient administration. The work that it is set up to do is to pay these people the money to which they are entitled, and When it does that we will join in the praise showered on it by the Under-Secretary and by the right hon. Member for Hillhead, and we will say then that it is efficient, but let it give us the proof first.
      10.0 P.M.
      Sir CHARLES STARMER: I am sure every one sympathised with the Government on being called upon to tackle the great problem of Reparations for damage by enemy action. I think every Member will gladly vote the payment of any sum of money necessary in order to give justice to these claimants, and therefore I deprecate any attack that may be made upon the Government in this matter. They are not to blame, and I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite who said that the Government were unwilling to do justice. They are faced with a tremendous difficulty, and it is our business to try and help them out of it. I therefore hope the matter will be discussed entirely from that point of view. I think the Government have shown their sympathy by answering questions quite frankly to the effect that the giving of the £5,000,000 was not an attempt to do justice, but merely some little consolation to those claimants whose claims have been admitted. If the figures be worked out, in the cases of my Division, it comes to about 6 per cent. of the amount claimed, but when you come to the belated claims, it works out at about—10 apiece for the 30,000 claimants, and, in the light of experience, that sum is totally inadequate. I am grateful to the Par-
      2604
      liamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for his statement to-night, not only because of what he said, but also because of what he did not say. In trying to defend the Department in the gigantic task with which they are faced, he naturally did his best to help them out of their difficulty, but I think he clearly showed that a, different method is needed in order to get justice for these people, that the old way has failed, and failed ignominiously, and that, if we want at this late hour to do justice, some new method will have to be set up I therefore support most heartily the suggestion that there should be an inquiry into the whole circumstances of the case. We know that there is no legal claim. But it is a case for doing justice to these men and women who suffered through enemy attack during the War.
      I think the Government would be delighted if they could see a way out, and I am satisfied that all the Members below the Gangway would be pleased. I think our Friends on the other side would also be glad, notwithstanding what the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) said, to help the Government to find the money. This is a very pathetic business. I have many cases in my constituency, a coast constituency, with a majority of poor people, many of whom have been out of work for a long time. In some parts they were bombarded two or three times a week by the enemy, and the people suffered great damage to their property. I do not want to weary the Committee with many cases, but I know of one where a woman's husband was away fighting in the War. He died shortly after he came home, and she is left with three bairnies on the parish. Her house was demolished in one of the air raids, but she has got neither raparation for her damage nor a pension for the loss of her husband, and she now depends on the parish for her livelihood. Some of the villages in my district are fishing villages, and there are several hard cases. I will cite only one, but I could give many. I will give the case of two brothers, who lost their boat, all their tackle, their nets, and everything connected with their business. They knew nothing about insurance, and have waited patiently for years, hoping to receive reparation. The result was made known a few weeks ago. Their claim was a just one, for £600, but they have obtained only £20. They have

      2605
      paid £5 to the lawyer who put their claim through, and so they have received £7 10s. each. Before the accident, they both made a livelihood for their wives and families. Now I hear that one of them is in the workhouse, and the other is unable to work, because they have not got their boat replaced on account of the damage done by the enemy.
      Those are only two cases. I could give scores from the division that I represent. I do say that nobody in this country would grudge paying a little extra money to do justice to the men who have suffered. I know all sympathise with these people, and many of them are very poor people. I could give a number of cases of people now dependent on charity because their claims have not been met. The Government ought to help these people. I know it is a big job to undertake. It ought to have been undertaken by previous Governments, but this has been gathering in force from year to year, and it is not enough to say that because the late Governments did not do it, it is not now to be done. I want the House to sink political considerations, and the Government to be courageous and to say that they will combine with the other parties in the, House, to try and formulate a scheme, so that justice can be done to the many poor people concerned.
      Sir THOMAS INSKIP: The hon. Member who has just spoken has chosen a subject which has secured for him the interest and sympathy of the Committee, and I am sure the Committee will desire to congratulate him on the speech he has made. The Committee are in an obvious difficulty at this stage of the evening in dealing with the question in the absence of any guidance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to the attitude the Government intend to adopt. I had hoped long before this hour we should have known what action the Government were prepared to take, or, at any rate, have been informed of the grounds upon which the Government find it impossible to adopt the course which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have invited them to take. I think it ought to be borne in mind that for the most part the claims for which we are seeking the sympathy of the Government are claims about which there can be no mariner of doubt what-
      2606
      ever. Everybody would desire to join in the tribute paid to Lord Sumner and his colleagues who have conducted the tedious and tiresome investigation, which has resulted in the Reports presented to Parliament. One thing has emerged from these thorough investigations, and that is that, speaking generally, the claims are absolutely unanswerable, both in the foundation of the claims themselves and in the amounts of the claims presented. They have been sifted by the Commission; they have been corroborated by independent evidence; they have been verified by every piece of evidence which so experienced an investigator as Lord Sumner could think of, and I venture to say they have been proved up to the hilt over and over again as claims which are worthy of support from the Commission. The Commission has almost gone out of its way in saying that the claims have been honestly prepared, and though there have been a few claims which, undoubtedly, were not so sound as others, speaking generally, the manner in which the claims have been presented does credit to those persons who have presented them.
      We have to bear in mind that the foundation of these claims is the Treaty of Versailles. Hon. Members will not forget that by Article 232—I think it was—and the Annexe to that part of the Treaty, these claims were treated as a solemn obligation on the part of Germany to discharge. In the same category as these claims stand in the Annexe to the Treaty stand the claims against Germany in respect of the payment of pensions to wounded persons, and to the dependants of persons who lost their lives in the War, and it is impossible to separate the claims which we are considering to-night in their moral value from the claims included under the general head of pensions. Both sets of claims were deliberately put into the Treaty, and Great Britain and the Allies determined to exact them from Germany as part of the reparations which Germany was under an obligation to pay. No hon. Member will listen for a moment to the suggestion that the claims which come under the head of pensions ought not to be discharged because Germany has failed to meet the obligations undertaken by the Treaty of Versailles, and I respectfully suggest to the Government it is equally wrong to say that these claims ought to await

      2607
      the payment of reparations by Germany before Great Britain can discharge her duty to her own subjects. There is this further fact which appears from the Reports of the Royal Commission. The Commission says:
      "It has been necessary to scrutinise the claims more strictly than the Commission would have desired to do by reason of the inadequacy of the sum that has been provided."
      I do not like that sentence in the Report. The Commission was undoubtedly faced with the unpleasant necessity of cutting down the claims. I do not complain in the least of the action it has taken, but, speaking as a Member of Parliament, and of the race which owes such a great debt to merchant seamen and others who bore their burdens uncomplainingly and unflinchingly, I do not like to read that our representatives have scrutinised just and verified claims with greater strictness than the Commission would have desired to do if they had been provided with the necessary funds to discharge our obligations.
      There is another word in the Report which I do not like to read, for it has an ominous sound. In the second Report of the Royal Commission they say that, having been unable to pay in full the debts, which they have found to be real claims upon the country, they have paid a dividend. The only people who pay dividends are those who are either unable or unwilling to discharge their obligations, and as long as Great Britain is both desirous of discharging her obligations and able to provide the means of discharging her obligations, I do not like to read that we are only discharging those obligations to the extent of a dividend of either 10, 15, 20 or 50 per cent. If the claims are good claims, and as long as the money is available, they ought to be paid, as the hon. Member says, to the extent of 20s. in the £.
      It may be convenient that I should say one word as to the position in which the late Government were, though I speak with no official authority on this matter, and merely with the same information that any other hon. Member has. But, surely, every hon. Member would agree it would be most unfortunate if these men were cheated of their proper rights while words were being bandied from
      2608
      one side of the House to the other as to who was responsible for not discharging this obligation. If it were necessary that any one on this side should stand in a white sheet, I am sure no one would shrink from it; but whether we put on a white sheet or not, that will not discharge my hon. Friend from approaching the matter in the way it ought to be approached. The Royal Commission was appointed in 1921, in the days of the Coalition Government. The claims came in slowly; they had to be examined with the greatest and most meticulous care, and scrutinised in the manner I have described. The First and Interim Report of the Royal Commission was only presented in February, 1923, and at that time the number of claims sent in was said to exceed 50,000, and a large number of claims had still been unexamined. It was not known to what extent the money provided would suffice to meet the claims that had been sent in, or that might have to be allowed. It was not until February, 1924, just when this Government had entered upon office, that the final Report was made and the expression was used to which I have referred, namely, a dividend which was all that was available to meet those obligations. I do not propose for a moment to condemn this Government for anything they have done in the past, because I think, having regard to the size of the amount which might be required to discharge the obligations, from February to the beginning of July is not too long a time to enable them to look into the matter. I do not criticise the Government for anything they failed to do, or might have been expected to do in the past. But I think I am entitled to say this: that if the Government now announce their intention to do nothing they will be exposing themselves to the justifiable criticism which, I am sure, will come from every quarter of the House.
      May I also make it plain that the sum of £5,000,000 was never intended, so far as I know, to be a final apportionment and liquidation of the claims of these people by the nation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why was it fixed"?] Why was it fixed? I will explain why. Remember the intention was to secure the payment of these claims by means of the Reparation Clause in the Versailles Treaty. [Interruption.] No doubt, hon. Mem-

      2609
      bers opposite foresaw everything that was likely to happen better than the most of us; but at any rate in was expected that the money would come out of Germany; and, in the words of the Commission, the Fund of £5,000,000 was one provided by the taxpayer to alleviate in some measure the delay in payment of the Treaty reparation. It was never intended to be final. It was intended to be an advance by the taxpayer for the alleviation of the distress which was caused by the delay in the payment of the Treaty reparation by Germany. The position to-day is that we may or may not get this reparation. I am not able to follow the comings and goings which are intended to lead to the happy day when this reparation will be paid. In this matter I follow the Prime Minister's movements with hope, and undying faith. But whether or not we get the reparation, the time has come when these people who are entitled to it should have something more than payment on account to alleviate their distress.
      The position of these people has been mentioned from all parts of the House. Whether they were people who saw their houses destroyed by the invaders of the air, or whether they were men who by their dogged heroism saved this country literally from starvation, they have proved up to the hilt the claims which they preferred before the Commission. They have made their claims. They have proved their claims. We recognise their right to have their claims paid in full What stands between them and the liquidation of their claims? The absence of money. Is that really the way in which we can afford to treat the people who have claims of this character upon us? They have added an illustrious page to the history of the British race. The only blot upon this page of our history will be that while their name is immortal their services to this country are largely unrequited. Some of them have crossed from time and place to a land where we cannot discharge our debt to them. To those who live and want we owe a debt which I can describe as no less if no more than a debt of honour which any honourable man would desire to discharge.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): The task of the Financial Secretary to
      2610
      the Treasury in any Government is always difficult, but it is excessively difficult to-night because we are dealing with a subject which commends itself to the sympathy of every hon. Member of this House. If all I could do was to indicate that nothing had been done in this connection, or that the little which has been done fell very short of the duty we owe to the sufferers, the case would be desperate indeed. Notwithstanding everything that has been said about the sufferings during the War, with which we all sympathise, I am bound to tell the House there is another side to this case, and it is that other side which briefly I propose to try to put before the Committee.
      It takes us back to the Treaty of Versailles, and, as hon. Members have indicated, it is true that under certain Clauses of that Treaty provision is made that compensation will be paid on very generous lines in respect of suffering by reason of enemy action during the War. Let me make it perfectly plain at onceߞand this goes to the root of a large part of the discussion which has taken place—that anything under these Clauses of the Treaty is really an obligation due by one State to another, and I do not think any hon. Member could make out the case that something attributable to another State should be allocated to any particular section of the community. That is a point which we are bound to emphasise in answer to the argument that leads many hon. Members to suggest that somehow or other Germany is going to escape her obligations in this connection.
      I do not think that question can arise. Any arrangement we make, any proposal of a domestic character, cannot have any real effect upon the reparation settlement one way or the other as a settlement due to this country. I entirely agree that there has been a good deal of understandable misapprehension on this question. Certain phrases in the announcement made in the House in 1920 seem to have led some Members to believe that individual people in the community would have some particular right. I frankly agree that statements were made during the lifetime of the Coalition Government that large reparations would be forthcoming, and that handsome treatment would be accorded to everyone who had suffered by the War. Without im-

      2611
      porting any party bias into this one way or the other, I think the Committee will agree that many of us, on these benches, at any rate, never indulged in any such extravagant hopes, and we were strongly criticised at the time for writing down reparations as an economic proposition. The situation became perfectly plain to everyone familiar with the problem. The payment of reparations was going to be, at the best, a slow process, and in 1920 an announcement was made in the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), who was then, I think, Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, having regard to the delay and the undoubted suffering of these people, the Government would provide,ex gratia—that phrase was emphasized—a sum of £5,000,000 against any payment that might come in, that a Royal Commission would be appointed to examine and investigate the claims, and that that amount would be used in dealing with the cases of hardship, which had, of course, a particularly strong claim.
      All along there never was the least doubt that that was a purely ex gratia allowance, and, in all the Debates that have taken place, hon. Members have never suggested that there was a legal claim, because, of course, that would be to invade an accepted principle in reparation claims. The Royal Commission began its work, and I need not occupy the time of the Committee in paying a further tribute to the manner in which it has discharged its duty. It was confronted with a task of extraordinary difficulty. The claims were assessed by the London Chamber of Commerce and other bodies at sums as high as £50,000,000, but, after the closest investigation by what was really an expert tribunal, those claims were reduced to £12,500,000. Everyone knows what happens in circumstances of the kind that I am now trying to describe. There are the people who have suffered by the War, and, with every desire to be honest, they naturally exaggerate the losses which they have sustained. Those losses were exposed to the test of this tribunal, and the sum which I have mentioned was fixed.
      2612
      Suppose that we pass to the other side of the case, and admit for a moment that the sufferers had some kind of legal claim. Suppose, if the Committee likes, that I put them in the position of people who had a right to the first payments from reparations by Germany in proportion to the loss that they had sustained; and for this purpose we are quite willing to take the figure of £6,600,000,000. Our share of that would have been 22 per cent., or £1,452,000,000, which may for the present purpose be taken as representing the aggregate damage sustained by Great Britain. Putting the claims of these people at the £12,500,000 fixed by the Royal Commission, after all its expert advice, it is perfectly clear that that is less than 1 per cent. of the £1,452,000,000 fixed as our share. Consequently, if we take £15,000,000 as the sum we have received so far in reparations, the position appears plainly to be this, that, up to date, on the present receipts of reparations, the sufferers whom we have more particularly in mind to-night, representing only about 1 per cent. of the damage, would be entitled to about £150,000. That would be their strict legal position under the reparation settlement. And, moreover, that would be their position if we put the reparation claim as high as £6,600,000,000 on the agreement or understanding that was then made. I have brought out these facts in order to take the Committee back to the bedrock position in this country, and they enable me to say that even if they were put upon a strictly legal basis, if we might so describe it, they have, in fact, got, not £150,000, but £5,300,000 provided by the taxpayers of Great Britain.
      Reference has been made to the argument which has been employed that it is no use suggesting that these people should have insured, but, after all, surely it is a, perfectly fair point to put. There was widespread advertisement. There was wide appeal by the Government at the time that insurance should be effected. I quite agree that very large numbers of the small people, particularly, had not very much chance to come into contact with the advertisements and, probably, were not familiar with insurance. But if hon. Members take that view of the small people who are affected, the Royal Commission has, in fact, covered the whole of the claims of the people in that position. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

      2613
      By small people I mean the small people whose claims were assessed at up to £250 and who got the full assessment. I think that is a perfectly fair point to put. I know, of course, that hon. Members will include in that category a large number of others, but, after all, there was £5,000,000 provided and the Royal Commission had to scale it down to something which would work out equitably in practice.
      Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to this notice, which was officially issued in 1916—
      "Owners of property in the United Kingdom of an aggregate value not exceeding £500 will be compensated by the Government in respect of damage or destruction of any such property by the perils coverable by the Government aircraft and bombardment insurance policy whether the property be insured under the Government insurance scheme or not."
      Mr. GRAHAM: I have no doubt that was one of the circulars issued at the time, but I still maintain that after all there was very widespread notice to insure and that if people did not insure they took the risk.
      Sir J. MARRIOTT: They were told they need not up to £500.
      Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to that, I would suggest that if they got the full £250 a very large proportion of their cases must have been covered. There is another point which I am afraid has been overlooked by many hon. Members Reference has been made to the undoubted hardship of large numbers of people in the mercantile marine. Under the War Risks Compensation scheme a sum of many millions has already been paid, and if the capital value of pensions is taken into account not less than £11,000,000 will be provided for sufferers under that head. I am afraid many hon. Members have quite forgotten that argument in making the case against the £5,300,000 ex gratia allowances which we are more immediately discussing.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) made two points with which I propose to deal. He said the Government of the day in arranging that ex gratia payment were not in possession of all the facts. At a very much later date Ministers on this
      2614
      Bench representing the Government of the day, that is before we came into office, said repeatedly that this was the final alowance or allocation. That statement was definitely and clearly made, and I could, if necessary, turn up the references in the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to put the matter beyond doubt. By Chancellors of the Exchequer within recent times, that was regarded as the limit to which the Government could go. We improved on that. We recognised, to some extent, the difficulty of belated claims, and we agreed to provide, not very long after we came into office, this additional sum of £300,000, which is now the subject of assessment.
      There is another point, regarding the position of people in Belgium and France. These people took the risk of the ordinary establishment of business in that country. It is true that they have not been compensated on the scale which the French Government have adopted in compensating their own people, but the Committee will admit at once that what has been done in France has, in all probability, been done under conditions widely different from the conditions which prevail in Great Britain. During the War, the Government of France did not do nearly so much for the people who were likely to suffer by war damage as we did. That being so, it seems not unreasonable to suggest that any post-War settlement in France would probably be more generous than was likely to obtain in this country.
      I have heard the French settlement criticised as being extravagant. There is not the least doubt that they have borrowed to meet the claims. They have imposed a very heavy burden upon other taxpayers for that purpose, but that is a consideration with which we are not immediately concerned to-night. The first fact to be borne in mind is that the French Government did not do so much for their people during the War, compared with the war risk compensation and other schemes which we had in force. That, no doubt, goes a long way to explain the provision that they have made now. As regards the other point, the Royal Commission in its second Report have made it plain that they cannot give people outside this country treatment different from that which was being accorded to people within. Accordingly, they agreed to put the two classes of

      2615
      sufferers outside this country and within this country on the same basis. For my part, I do not see how any other scheme could have been adopted.
      There remain only one or two points which I should like to put to the Committee. I do not think that it can be suggested that in all the circumstances the provision of £5,300,000 has been unsatisfactory. [How. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] At any rate, when hon. Members get into the sphere of moral claims—and, after all, that is very largely the case which is being made to night—every member of the community has a moral claim of some kind. A very large sum can be claimed under a head of that kind. I feel very strongly that, in so far as we are called upon ex gratia to recognise the sufferings of these people, up to the present time we have taken, on the whole, a generous line. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The story is not closed. The Committee knows that this £300,000 is still the subject of inquiry. The claims that have been received will be duly assessed, and in due course payment will be made, and I suggest that in that event it is premature to press the Government further, until we see how far the £300,000 will go as regards the belated claims.
      On the last point hon. Members have pressed me to make a statement to-night, which, I think, on reflection no hon. Member would, in the last resort, expect me to make at all. In other words, they have said, will the Government give a guarantee that out of the payments of reparation, which are still to be made by Germany, they will set aside large sums for the relief of the sufferers whose case we have under discussion. It is plain that I could not give any undertaking of that kind. If I did, quite clearly, I would contradict what I have already stated, that this is really a claim from one country against another, and, further, that it would be impossible to say anything of a definite character, because there will be a discussion on reparation in this House, and, of course, there will be further discussion, and, we all hope, agreement elsewhere. What is to be done, either as regards particular sufferers, because of enemy action during the War, or as regards the use of reparations as a whole, I cannot say at the time, but I
      2616
      do say that, first of all, we have under assessment the £300,000 of belated claims, together with such money as still falls to be paid out of the orginal £5,000,000, and there is the whole wider problem of reparations settlement under the adoption of the Dawes Committee Report, of whatever the agreement may be.
      Lord APSLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee and those claimants whether the £300,000 is going to be final, and that they will not get any more, or whether there is a possibility of getting further payments?
      Mr. GRAHAM: We have indicated over and over again at this Box that, so far as we are concerned, we cannot pay a larger sum. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, after a very full consideration of all the circumstances, stated that we cannot go beyond this sum.
      Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: In that case, what does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying that each of these claims must be duly assessed?
      Mr. GRAHAM: We are dealing now with belated claims and that is why under this procedure, now that all the claims have been received, there will be fixed a scale which the belated claimant will be entitled to obtain.
      Sir J. PENNEFATHER: Does not "duly assessed" mean that each claim will be considered on its merits, and a proper sum paid in respect of it?
      Mr. GRAHAM: Each claim will be considered on its merits, but we have got to fix a scale of payment within the limits of the £300,000. That is obvious. For my part I would like to be able to make some other kind of statement to the Committee. The Committee is apt to import into this Debate a perfectly natural sympathy with the sufferers. Against that may I point out that in making a provision for £5,300,000 a great deal has been done, and I am afraid that there is no possibility of going beyond that on the present occasion.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: I am afraid that the Committee has heard the Financial Secretary with feelings of dismay. I think that he made to my hon. Friend below the Gangway a definite statement that all hope of any increase

      2617
      on the £300,000 is to be dispelled. I am one of those who believe that the Government of this country, whatever Government it may be, has never treated these people in a generous manner. It is not a question of the Coalition Government or the Unionist Government or the Labour Government. I am under the impression that very often moral claims should take precedence of what may be called legal claims, and that they should be dealt with much more liberally than on the basis of the payment of the last penny which is permitted by the law. An hon. Member opposite stated that it was the duty of the Government to pay the whole of the claimants, whether they were insured or not. I join issue with him at once. It may be known that for many years I have been connected with insurance matters. If the premium is paid it is the duty of the insurance company or the underwriter to bear the responsibility, and not to expect any reparation of any Government. But, as was said by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), the Government in 1916 issued a statement, after many discussions in this House, and after an increase in aircraft activities, that they would bear the first claim for any damage up to, not £250, as was stated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but up to £500.
      The Government have not carried out that obligation. It is all very well to say that certain people did not make their claims in due time. These people did not know the regulations with which they had to comply. It was just the same in the matter of the claims that were sent in under the Corn Production Act. They did not say that they would not recognise the claims unless they were sent in by a certain date. The Government should not act in this niggardly manner, and say merely: "We are going to add £300,000 to the payments and no more." I would like to say a word with regard to our mariners. We all know the enormous difficulty and dangers by which these people were faced. We know that their just claims have not been met, and if there is only £300,000 available they cannot be met. I hope that under pressure that amount will be increased. I trust that the Government will give particular attention to the claims that were referred to by an hon. Member opposite who made an excellent maiden speech to-night, and
      2618
      that they will undertake to meet those claims in full, and that thus some good will have come out of this discussion to-night.
      Sir COURTENAY MANSELL: Mr. Harmsworth said he made his remarks in no hostility to the Government. If the Government reject this appeal I shall never again give them support or any other Government that would do it. Will this great country be deceived by this iniquitous transaction? You have received tons and tons of shipping for British ships sunk and yet you have allowed these poor men to live in indigence and go through the worst of experiences, that of disappointed hope. We cannot realise the months growing into years of waiting and hoping that each conference would make a just settlement, those hopes dwindling down to miserable postcards acknowledging the receipt of their communications. I know the case of an old man who invested the whole proceedings of his life savings in a schooner that has been sunk and lost. All compensation has been refused him on the ground that he should have been his own insurer. His own insurer against the risk of a world war! That is not a just proposition. St. Paul was proud to claim to be a Roman citizen. Will it be possible after this, if this just claim is ignored, for an Englishman to boast that he is an Englishman. Of all the loss this country has sustained there would be no greater loss than the loss of our good name. I appeal to the Government to act justly and do justice in this case.
      Mr. HUDSON: I am sorry to find both from the right hon. Gentleman and from others who have taken part in the Debate including the last speaker that there is still a considerable attempt being made to place the responsibility for this question on payments that can be extracted from the late enemy. I think really what is now taking place is that the country generally is having to learn—and perhaps included with them are Members of the apposite benches—that although there is a claim to be made for the people we have discussed to-night that they should have much more than the Government is able to give them, they are only a part, a small part of a very large number of people in this country whose returns would be considerably augmented if justice were being done. One hon. Member

      2619
      has been speaking about this being a moral claim and suggesting that it should stand before a legal claim. I would suggest to the hon. Member that a greater moral claim might have been made against those who did their best to have men conscripted during the War and after the War used all the power they possessed——
      Lord APSLEY: On a point of Order. Has this anything to do with the reparations claim?
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must be allowed to proceed a little further before I can answer that question.
      Mr. HUDSON: A claim has been put forward to-night that payment should be made under this head on the ground of this being a moral claim, and therefore possessing more importance than any other claim, legal or otherwise. I was suggesting that the most important moral claim that could be put forward was to provide the money whereby the claims now being considered could be met. I want to suggest that there should be a levy upon wealth, and especially war wealth, and that would give hon. Members opposite better grounds for asking the Treasury that a considerable increase should be made in the sum granted to meet these claims. The sum already granted I would call comparatively generous. We are all anxiously hopeful that the Prime Minister will be able in his present effort to collect reparations, and thus do something to meet these cases, but I want to remind hon. Members who were misleading the country with regard to reparations three or four years ago that these promises often turn to ashes and Dead Sea fruit, as they did when the promise to make the Germans pay failed utterly of fulfilment.
      Sir R. HORNE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put,"but the Deputy-Chairman withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
      Mr. HUDSON: Another great difficulty——[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
      Mr. HARMSWORTH rose in his place and claimed to move,"That the Question he now put,"but the Deputy-Chairman withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
      Mr. HUDSON rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
      Mr. HARMSWORTH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put, "but the Deputy-Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question
      It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

TELEGRAPH [MONEY].
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed on Consideration of Resolution [7th July],
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution,
"That it is expedient,

(1) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole seventeen million pounds, as are required for the further development of the telephonic system and to authorise the Treasury to borrow money, by means of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer bonds, for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof to the Consolidated Fund, and to provide for the payment of the terminable annuities or of the principal of and interest on any such Exchequer bonds out of moneys provided by Parliament for Post Office services or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund; and

(2) to make provision with respect to the application of sums arising from the sale of any property acquired for the purposes of the telephonic system."

Question again proposed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Hartshorn and Mr. William Graham.

TELEGRAPH [MONEY].
  TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL,
  "to provide for raising further money for the purpose of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1922, and to make provision with respect to the application of sums arising from the sale of property acquired for the purposes of the telephonic system," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the draft of a Special order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Emsworth Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 7th July and published be approved."—[Mr. Alexander.]
Mr. G. BALFOUR: Surely some explanation will be given by the hon. Gentleman in charge of this matter? Is there any reason why this Order should be passed at this time without something being put before the House?
Mr. ALEXANDER: The Order has been agreed to by all the parties concerned.
Mr. BALFOUR: I submit it is not sufficient to say that the Order has been agreed to by all the parties concerned. Some reasons should be placed before the House to show why, as a matter of public policy, the Order should be approved.
Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member above all others in the House knows the procedure in regard to Orders of this kind, and the point he is endeavouring to raise is only pure obstruction.
Mr. BALFOUR: I would like to submit that it is not a matter of obstruction. I am interested in Orders of this kind, and I have objected in this House to Orders in which I am interested, because no personal interest of any Member of this House should stand in the way. And it rests with Ministers on all occasions to submit to this House the reasons as to why these Orders should be passed, without regard either to the existence of any member of the public outside or any individual Member of this House.
Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Alexander.]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
The following Motion stood -on the Order Paper in, the name of Mr. ALEXANDER:
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Reading Gas Company, which was presented on the 26th June and published, be approved."
HON. MEMBERS: Object!
Mr. ALEXANDER: May I say that we were prepared to give a certain concession to an hon. Member on the other side, who asked for one of these Orders, and we can hardly be expected to do that if we are getting deliberate obstruction of this kind.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not like the use of the word "obstruction." It does not facilitate business.
Mr. BALFOUR rose——
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House. I have not put the next Order.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

POLICE (WHITE OVERALLS).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. A. Parkinson.]
HON. MEMBERS: Object!
Viscount CURZON rose——
Captain BENN: On a point of Order. The other day an hon. and learned Member opposite wished to divide on this Motion, and you told him, Mr. Speaker, that no division could be taken because no Motion which was objected to could he taken after Eleven. I therefore ask what is the result of the objection which hag been taken to this Motion. Either the Motion can be divided upon, or it is a Motion which cannot be taken as opposed business. Therefore, I submit that as an hon. Member objects to this Motion it cannot be taken, unless a Division is permitted.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think I have heard that question raised before with my predecessor, and the ruling which I gave last night was in accordance with the precious rulings of Mr. Speaker Lowther.
Captain BENN: Then does this Motion, "That the House do now adjourn" fall within the category of opposed or unopposed business?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is a Motion on which Members are entitled to raise their grievances until half-past Eleven. I cannot give any other answer than that. I must follow the rulings of my predecessor.
Viscount CURZON: The question I desire to raise was the question I tried to bring up last Monday, when, I regret to say, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was not in his place to hear it. It is the question as to whether policemen employed on point duty at the inadequately lighted points should not be equipped with white overall coats, in order that they may be more visible. The point I desire to raise is one entirely in the interests of public safety. I put a question to the Home Secretary last Thursday, and I got a very unsatisfactory answer; in fact, he would not even give me the assurance for which I asked, that he would carry out experiments. I do not ask for a general distribution of white overall coats but for their use at certain points where it is very difficult to see. The expense would be very limited. The Home Secretary has not given any reason why he has refused to carry out a trial. May I suggest to the Under-Secretary that the reason advanced in the past is that they might get dirty? This is impossible, owing to the fact that the intention is that they should be similar to those used on ships, and would only need to be wiped over to be made quite clean. I would like the hon. Gentleman to see for himself the points where Battersea Bridge crosses the Embankment, and the busy points at Earl's Court and in Cromwell Road.
An enormous amount of traffic passes over those roads, and it is almost impossible in bad weather conditions or at any time of night to see the policeman on point duty. It is said that they have been given white gloves, but only one pair is given at each point, and that pair has to be passed on from man to man. As the gloves get dirty, they have to go to the wash, and unless the men replace them at their own expense, it is impossible for them to keep their white gloves up to the mark. What I am urging the hon. Gentleman to do has been already adopted by no less than 50 county boroughs and four county police forces, including, incidentally, the Home Secretary's own constituency. The Under-Secretary represents Westhoughton in Lancashire. Practically every county borough in Lancashire has adopted these white overall coats. It is, therefore, up to him and his Department to give us a real, tangible reason why he absolutely
2624
refuses even to carry out an experiment. If it would facilitate experiment I would be quite ready, at my own expense, to provide one or two outfits, which could be used at the very inadequately provided points to which I have referred. I submit that my proposition is in the interests of safety, not only of the men themselves but of the general workers. I would invite any hon. Member who does not see the necessity for this to go to the points I have indicated, when perhaps it may be raining, and then he will see what the problem really is. There are workers who earn their daily bread by driving motor vehicles who are actually losing their licences through not being able to obey the orders of the police, whom they say they cannot possibly see. I think that alone should commend my proposition to hon. Members, and on grounds on which they ought to be easily satisfied. I hope, at any rate, the Under-Secretary will be able to give some better reason than has yet been given for the extraordinary attitude of the Home Office on this question.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): In the first place, I wish to apologise to the House for not being here the other night when this matter was raised. I would also like to congratulate the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) for his persistence in this matter. He raised this issue so far back as 1921, again in 1922 and I think on more than one occasion this year. The Home Office has never yet received any representations on this subject from any representative authority. Scotland Yard has not received any complaint either during the last few years except perhaps from a, few stray individuals who have taken a little interest in the subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] The Home Office was some time ago asked for a Return. The Return shows that four county forces, Durham, Gloucester and the East and North Ridings of Yorkshire, have got these outfits for the police on point duty. Besides these county authorities, 34 borough forces use them generally. Thirteen more use them in wet weather only. They are not in use in about 50 county forces and 70 borough forces.
Mr. MOND: Canada is a progressive country; they are worn there.
Mr. DAVIES: These are not in use in the large forces of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester—if the latter used them they have now discarded them.
Mr. REMER: What about Liverpool?
Mr. DAVIES: If they were used there they have now been discarded. We are told that white overalls were to draw the attention of motorists to the policemen on point duty. All places in London where policemen are on point duty are adequately lighted, but if the Noble Lord can give me instances of such places which are not well lighted I will inquire into them at once. I have already noted the several places which he has mentioned. I would like to point out, however, that it should be the duty of motorists to drive very carefully at all places which are busy enough to require a man on point duty. I repeat that the driver of a motor car ought to be more careful there than at any other place.
Viscount CURZON: It is impossible for anybody not knowing every detail of London traffic to know where he is going to find a policeman on point duty.
Mr. DAVIES: If they will proceed slowly they will find them. No evidence has been produced to show that accidents could have been avoided had the police on point duty been wearing white overalls. A minor point I should like to refer to also is the question of the cost. I am authorised to state that the Secretary of State has not closed his mind to the Noble Lord's appeal. He is ready at any time to give full consideration to any proposals if and when it can be shown that they are stronger than those which have been submitted to him already. More than that I have nothing to add. We are not yet convinced that the Noble Lord has made out a case.
Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Member consent to carry out the experiment if I provide two suits at my own expense?
Mr. DAVIES: I will gladly convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. BALFOUR: What are the better and stronger suggestions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?
Mr. DAVIES: It is hardly for me to tell the hon. Member what arguments he ought to use on this subject.
Captain Viscount EDNAM: Will the hon. Gentleman supply a sufficiency of white gloves?
Sir H. BRITTAIN: If the hon. Gentleman agrees to the suggestion of white gloves, why cannot he carry it a little further? If one is good, surely the other is better?
Mr. BECKER: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think that the House is unanimous on this question, and that we want a policeman to wear white spats. It is all very well comparing London to the Provinces, but in London the policeman turns his back on the traffic and holds up the first two or three vehicles. In Liverpool and other places where white coats are used, you find one isolated constable standing in the middle of a very busy thoroughfare doing semaphore work, and it is almost impossible to understand what he means. If white coats are introduced for the London police, it will simply mean that there will be attempts to economise in the number of policemen on point duty, and the London traffic will be reduced to the stupid state of that in the Provinces.
s Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Eleven o'clock.

Housing
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES (SUBSIDY).
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES (SUBSIDY).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  BUILDING MATERIALS MANUFACTURERS' AND SUPPLIERS' COMMITTEE.
  BUILDING MATERIALS MANUFACTURERS' AND SUPPLIERS' COMMITTEE.
  MEASUREMENT (LIMITATION).
  MEASUREMENT (LIMITATION).
  BED WAS AND MACHAN URBAN DISTRICT (REJECTED PLANS).
  BED WAS AND MACHAN URBAN DISTRICT (REJECTED PLANS).
  GRETNA AND EASTRIGGS (MATERIALS).
  GRETNA AND EASTRIGGS (MATERIALS).
  NON-PARLOUR HOUSES (PRICES).
  NON-PARLOUR HOUSES (PRICES).
  SMALL-POX
  SMALL-POX
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES (HOSPITALS).
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES (HOSPITALS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  ROYAL MARINES (PENSIONS).
  ROYAL MARINES (PENSIONS).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (FIRST AID).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (FIRST AID).
  SCALE OF SERVICE (BOYS' TIME).
  SCALE OF SERVICE (BOYS' TIME).
  PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS (MESSES).
  PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS (MESSES).
  ADMIRALTY YACHT "ENCHANTRESS."
  ADMIRALTY YACHT "ENCHANTRESS."
  CANTEEN BUILDINGS.
  CANTEEN BUILDINGS.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS, DEVONPORT.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS, DEVONPORT.
  DOCKYARD POLICE DUTIES (PENSIONERS).
  DOCKYARD POLICE DUTIES (PENSIONERS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  AERODROMES, OXFORDSHIRE.
  AERODROMES, OXFORDSHIRE.
  TENDERS (PUBLICITY)
  TENDERS (PUBLICITY)
  CHILDREN'S ACT.
  CHILDREN'S ACT.
  Miss LILLIAN SCOTT TROY.
  Miss LILLIAN SCOTT TROY.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  POLICE SERVICE (POINT DUTY).
  POLICE SERVICE (POINT DUTY).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (PROMOTION).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (PROMOTION).
  TREASURY.
  TREASURY.
  BUILDING TRADE (TRAINING).
  BUILDING TRADE (TRAINING).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  DOMESTIC SERVICE.
  DOMESTIC SERVICE.
  UNSKILLED LABOURERS (WAGES).
  UNSKILLED LABOURERS (WAGES).
  NUNEATON CO-OPERATIVE STORES (DISPUTE).
  NUNEATON CO-OPERATIVE STORES (DISPUTE).
INDIA.
  AUXILIARY AND TERRITORIAL FORCES COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  AUXILIARY AND TERRITORIAL FORCES COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  CANTONMENT MAGISTRATES.
  CANTONMENT MAGISTRATES.
EDUCATION.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, LONDON.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, LONDON.
  MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.
  MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES (INTERNMENT PERIODS).
  TEACHERS' SALARIES (INTERNMENT PERIODS).
  LEAVING AGE (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES).
  LEAVING AGE (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES).
  BLIND CHILDREN.
  BLIND CHILDREN.
  NURSERY SCHOOLS.
  NURSERY SCHOOLS.
AGRICULTURE.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  HUSBANDRY (CONTROL).
  HUSBANDRY (CONTROL).
  LOANS.
  LOANS.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND DOMINIONS (CONSULTATION).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND DOMINIONS (CONSULTATION).
  KENYA COLONY (TRANSFERRED TERRITORY).
  KENYA COLONY (TRANSFERRED TERRITORY).
  WORLD POWER CONFERENCE.
  WORLD POWER CONFERENCE.
  ROADSIDE TREE PLANTING.
  ROADSIDE TREE PLANTING.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  GERMANY (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  GERMANY (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES (MR. ROACH).
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES (MR. ROACH).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  ROEHAMPTON HOSPITAL.
  ROEHAMPTON HOSPITAL.
  AFFORESTATION.
  AFFORESTATION.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
FINANCE BILL.
  TEA DUTY (PRICES).
  TEA DUTY (PRICES).
  CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  STAMP DUTIES.
  STAMP DUTIES.
  ROYAL MINT.
  ROYAL MINT.
  COAL PRICES.
  COAL PRICES.
POST OFFICE.
  SMALL HEAD OFFICES (RE-GRADING).
  SMALL HEAD OFFICES (RE-GRADING).
  FACILITIES, TUTNALLS, LYDNEY.
  FACILITIES, TUTNALLS, LYDNEY.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name
Moved, That the Order made on the 10th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 17th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given.
Moved, That the Bill be divided into two parts, viz.:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [H.L.]; and
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Blackpool Order) Bill [H.L].
That the Report of the Examiners on the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [H.L.] be held to apply also to the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Blackpool Order) Bill [H.L.].—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (FEMALE ORPHAN ASYLUM. ETC.) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I think there will not be much question as to the necessity for this Bill. It is a Bill to make provision for the control and regulation of traffic in and near London. No doubt, in the detailed proposals, which I will try to explain as clearly as I can, there may be room for criticism. The question was much discussed in another place, and, so far as the difficulties and dangers of present day traffic are concerned, a good deal has been said, both in this House and in another pace. Your Lordships heard, with great regret, that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, had been nearly killed by a motor car driven at what was considered to be an excessive pace. I do not suppose that your Lordships will desire to go back in any way upon the matters which were there discussed It ought to be borne in mind that the Bill only refers to traffic in and near London. That does not mean that there is no necessity for the control of traffic outside London. But so far as this Bill is concerned, it is limited to an area of 25 miles around Charing Cross. At any rate, it is a limited Bill and the extent to which it is limited is shown in the terms of the First Schedule. Therefore, I think I shall perform my duty most shortly and, I hope, clearly, by referring at once to the special provisions which the Bill contains.
The first provision is contained in Clause 1 the proposal being to constitute what is called an Advisory Committee for the purpose of giving advice and assistance, in the manner provided by the Bill, to the Minister of Transport, who is the Minister concerned in the administration of this Bill and to whom large powers are

407
given by the Bill in the matter of the control and regulation of traffic. That proposed Advisory Committee consists of nineteen members. I need not go into the methods of appointment, which are all set out in the clause. There are certain ordinary members who are always part of the Committee and certain additional members who are only called to be members of the Committee on specified occasions. I might, perhaps, called the attention of your Lordships to subsection (5), which I think indicates a very proper test of disqualification for membership:—
"A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being an ordinary member of the Advisory Committee if he is a director of a company or a partner in a firm or is in the employment of a company or firm engaged in providing means of transport within the London Traffic Area."
Obviously, that is a proper measure of disqualification because a person in any such position must be biassed in regard to the matters with which this Bill proposes to deal. The only other point that I think I need refer to in Clause 1 is that the Advisory Committee is under duty to make an annual Report of their proceedings which shall be laid before Parliament. Therefore, what it does under this Bill will come annually before Parliament and, if necessary, of course will be matter for discussion.
Clause 2 deals with the duties of the Advisory Committee. Their duties are considerable in extent, but in most cases are merely preliminary to a decision being given by the Minister himself; so that, undoubtedly, it is a principle of this Bill that the Minister is the responsible person, and the Minister is subject to Parliamentary control. Then it is said that it is the duty of the Advisory Committee to advise the Minister upon such matters as he refers to them under the Bill, or as the Minister may refer to them from time to time under the Second Schedule. If your Lordships will look at the Second Schedule you will find that it refers to a very large number of matters in respect to any of which the Minister can refer for consultation and advice to the Advisory Committee.
In Clause 3 power is given to the Advisory Committee to hold inquiries, with proper provisions to give notice to persons interested who have a right to be heard. In subsection (3) a certain right of delegation is given, which is, I
408
think, necessary for a large Committee of this kind in connection with the duties thrown upon them.
The first clause which appears to me to be of real, importance, and not a mere question of procedure, is Clause 4 ["Closing of streets for works"] to which I attach great importance. I think it is extremely valuable. Probably your Lordships are all aware of the great inconvenience of dealing with matters of road maintenance and improvement, very often at the most crowded time of the year and under very inconvenient conditions. Streets are interfered with now by two types of person—by the local authority who have the care and guardianship of the streets, and by the undertakers, as they are called, such as the old water companies, electric lighting companies and undertakers, and persons with similar powers who, in pursuance of the statutory right which they possess, are entitled, under conditions, to take up the streets from time to time in connection with their business.
The first portion of this clause refers to street authorities and can, I think, be stated quite shortly, although the clause itself is rather long. The proposal is that these local authorities who desire to deal with the taking up of streets shall prepare a scheme for the succeeding six months' work; the idea being to bring about what is called coordination in order that streets in a great area like London, for instance, shall be dealt with generally so far as to interfere as little as possible with the traffic and comfort of passengers, whether in vehicles or on foot. When this scheme for six months has been prepared by the local authorities concerned it comes before the Minister. The Minister sends it for advice to the Advisory Committee, and in the end he is himself responsible for issuing an order, either sanctioning the scheme as it is brought before him, or sanctioning it with amendments. When the scheme has once been sanctioned, except for special matters of emergency or things of that kind, it becomes compulsorily operative. That is a very important matter, because of the somewhat anarchic way in which the streets of a great town are now interfered with, occasioning great obstruction and inconvenience to traffic.

409
If your Lordships will look beyond that point to a later stage, in the clause—subsection (3)—you will find that there the Bill proposes to deal with undertakers having statutory authority. The design is that the scheme of the local authorities shall be sent to the undertakers, and the undertakers shall carry out any works that they want to do at the time when the streets are opened for the purposes of the local authority. It is admitted that a great nuisance is caused nowadays by this kind of thing happening: Immediately one authority has opened up a street and put it down again, another authority, or undertaker, comes and opens it up and occasions once more all the difficulties and obstruction to traffic. There is a provision, therefore, that these undertakers are to take advantage of the time when the streets are pulled up by the local authorities, and not to have a further power of interfering with them for twelve months after that date, except in cases of emergency. Of course, in cases of emergency, like the breaking of a pipe or something of that kind, the matter must be dealt with immediately, but, subject to an emergency arising, the provision is that the undertakers must take advantage of the time when the streets are already opened for purposes of repair and renewal. For twelve months from that date they are not to have the power of acting independently. I believe that provision for co-ordinating interference with the streets will, in itself, be a very great advantage to traffic facilities.
There is a further provision, in Clause 5, which relates only to what is called obstruction to traffic by undertakers. A power is given to the police to intervene if they consider the underakers, in carrying out their works, are unfairly obstructing the traffic in the street—that is to say, where they take up too much space by the protective works which they put up, or take up too much space by allowing the débris to impinge too much upon the main street. In such cases the police authorities are to have the power to interfere, but only in this sense: If the undertakers say that interference by the police is not justified, they can go to the local authority, and again the question arises of the Minister and the Advisory Council whose powers may come into operation if the undertakers think that they have been in any way unfairly dealt
410
with. It appears to me that, considering what the conditions may be, there is every possible protection for the undertakers that they shall not be interfered with in carrying out their statutory duties.
Probably the two most contentious portions of the Bill, judging from what passed in another place, are Clauses 6 and 7. These clauses deal with omnibus traffic. The provisions with regard to omnibus traffic may appear at first sight to be a little complicated, but I think they can be easily appreciated if your Lordships will allow me, first of all, to state what the clauses generally provide, and then to call your attention to the special provisions in the clauses. These provisions are really of a twofold nature. In Clause G, under a system of what is called specified routes, or restricted or defined routes, you are given a power of this kind. You give a licence to the omnibus licensee to restrict, in a way which I will point out in greater detail by and by, the route which he is entitled to use. It certainly does seem to be extremely important that there should be some power of that kind.
At present, the only power of restriction is that an omnibus cannot be licensed if it is mechanically unfit for a certain route. There is no other power whatever, because the licensing authorities in London are the police. Outside London, in all the counties and county boroughs which come under the Public Health Act, there is a much wider power of regulation in regard to routes and conditions of licences, and generally—I do not say it is exactly the same provision—the purport of the Bill is to give the same power in regard to the regulation of omnibus traffic in the London area that the local authorities have in the outside areas. So long ago as 1847 in the Police Clauses Act, which was a consolidating Act, certain powers were given, and in course of time all those provisions were incorporated in the Public Health Act. The effect of that was to give these powers to all the local authorites outside the London area. Surely, it is time that powers of a somewhat similar character should be given to the London area itself. I will return later to the special terms.
It is also provided in the Bill hat there shall be a certain restriction or limitation upon the number of omnibuses

411
running on certain routes where such restriction is required in the public interest, or for the convenience of traffic. An illustration was given to me which, I think, will probably appeal to your Lordships. It has become necessary, in such streets as the Strand and Fleet-street, to protect the people who use those strets against the enormous burden of omnibus traffic, particularly at certain times of the day. It is also necessary, no doubt, to consider the requirements of the travelling public. This limitation is not under the police authorities at all, but is placed under the Minister and the Advisory Council. That is thought to be a question with which ho ought to deal, and not a matter for the police.
I will now ask your Lordships to consider the provisions of Clauses 6 and 7 I think I can state quite shortly how the general provision is in detail carried out. In Clause 6 the licensing authority, which is the police, may, with a view to securing the public safety and the convenience of traffic, define, by reference to certain terminal points and to the course to be followed between those points, the approved routes within the area. That is a necessary preliminary to the further control of omnibus traffic. It is obvious that if you want to control that traffic you must have some means of defining the different routes in order to determine where the traffic shall be carried on. The clause goes on to say:—
"Any person who proposes to establish a regular service of omnibuses within the area of the licensing jurisdiction of any such licensing authority upon a route which is not on approved route may apply to the licensing authority to define that route as an approved route."
If his application does not succeed there is an appeal to the Minister and the Advisory Committee.
Subsection (2) of this clause is important and should be carefully studied. It says:—
"When licensing an omnibus to ply for hire within the area aforesaid, the licensing authority may, subject to the right of appeal to the Minister"—
a right of appeal is given in all cases—
… attach to any such licence all or any of the following conditions, that is to say:—
"(a) a condition that the omnibus shall not ply for hire upon specified approved routes or any specified parts thereof, but such condition
412
shall be imposed only on the ground that the omnibus is by reason of its construction or equipment unsuitable for use on such routes or parts thereof:
That is a very limited power. It almost exists at the present, because an omnibus which by reason of its construction is not suited to go along a certain road would hardly get a licence now.
Then follow the other conditions:—
"(b) a condition that the omnibus shall not, without the consent of the licensing authority, which consent may be either of special or of general application, and may be either absolute or subject to any conditions, ply for hire except upon approved routes;
"(c) a condition that the omnibus shall not without such consent as aforesaid ply for lure except in maintaining a regular service."
I should like to say one word with regard to the obligation to maintain a "regular service," and the reasons for it. There are two difficulties which arise in the absence of a regular service. At the most crowded times of the day, when omnibus traffic is best as regards remuneration, you have a regular crush of omnibuses, more than ought to be allowed along certain routes, whereas at other times of the day, when there is a comparatively small traffic, not only do you not have a crush of omnibuses but you do not have sufficient omnibuses for the requirements of the traffic. What is meant by a "regular service" is the provision of a sufficient proportion of the service to deal with the rich traffic at the crowded times and what I may call the lean traffic at other times, with the result that the public get an additional advantage at the lead times and obstruction to traffic is diminished at those portions of the day when it is most crowded.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is a "regular service" defined in the Bill?
LORD PARMOOR: I am not sure that it is actually within the terms of the definition clause. I do not think it is, but it means a regular service just as in the ease of the train service. You must have so many omnibuses starting at certain times and particular places. You would have an omnibus service just like a train service, at regular times and under regular conditions. That is the meaning of the term "regular service." There are

413
the ordinary penalties in case of default Subsection (3) deals with substituted licences and is only a matter of convenient procedure.
Subsection (4) is important. It includes a schedule of conditions and perhaps best answers the noble Marquess's question. It contains a schedule of conditions which are to be undertaken when an application for a licence is made. The licensing authority may require the person who asks for a licence to deposit a schedule showing certain things and I should like to make it clear that it is not a compulsory clause in the sense that these are provisions forced upon an unwilling licensee. It is only when the licensee himself comes and asks for the privilege which he desires to obtain that these conditions are attached. He must show—
"(a) the approved routes upon which he intends to establish a regular service of omnibuses;
"(b) the time at which the service on each route is to commence and end on each day;
"(c) the service to be maintained on each such route, distinguishing, if the service to be maintained on different days or at different hours is to vary, the service to be maintained on the several days or at the several hours;
"(d) the maximum number of omnibuses to be used to maintain such service on each such route, distinguishing, if the service is to vary on different days, the maximum number to he so used on the several days "—
I want to call special attention to paragraph (e) of this subsection, which deals with the stages into which the licensee intends to divide each route and the fares which he intends to charge in respect of such stages.
This was put in by the Committee of the House of Commons sitting upstairs, and the purport of it will be seen more clearly when I come to deal with other provisions which were also inserted by the Committee. It is a question of some further control as regards the operation of the approved route and charging fares. These are the words of paragraph (e)—
"(e) the stages into which he intends to divide each route and the fares winch he intends to charge in respect of such stages, distinguishing, if the stages and fares are to vary on different days or at different hours, the stages and fares on the several days and at the several hours."
The meaning of that is to give certain control over the fares and not to allow
414
exaggerated fares to be charged. When an application is made one of the points to which attention is given is the fares proposed to be charged. After that the schedule is proposed, and there are various powers of appeal, to which I need not draw your attention specially.
If I went into detail on every provision I should detain your Lordships a very long time. There is, however, an important provision in subsection (5) of this clause. It was introduced into the. Bill by the Committee of the House of Commons in order to give a further measure of public control. It says—
"The Corporation of the City of London and the council of any county, or borough or district wholly or partly within the area aforesaid shall have the right at any time of appealing to the Minister against any schedule for the time being in force"—
And what are the grounds of appeal? They are these:—
"on the ground that any of the stages specified therein are unreasonably short or inconvenient or that any of the fares so specified are unreasonably high …"
There you give to the public authority the power to object to the schedule as brought forward by the omnibus proprietor on the ground that the fares he proposes to charge are unreasonable. That is really the reason why paragraph (e) was introduced into the preceding subsection. It was to give the information, and, when the information is given, these public authorities have a right to intervene. To quote the words of the clause:—
"The Minister on such appeal, after giving the holder of a licence the opportunity of being heard, may make such order amending the schedule as he may think fit."
That is to say, if objection is taken to a high charge, it can be amended. If the schedule, as amended, appears to the omnibus proprietor in any way unfair or unjust—though one does not contemplate that event—there is no obligation upon him to carry out his duties, or to go on with his proposals.
Subsection (6) gives a power of amendment, but I do not think that I need trouble your Lordships with the point which it raises. Such a power is necessary from time to time. Subsection (7) gives the Minister power to make certain regulations. These regulations are not those with which I shall have to deal subsequently. They are regulations regarding matters of procedure, such as

415
the taking of evidence and questions of that kind. Traffic regulations are a different matter, with which I shall have to deal later on. Subsection (9) declare" that, if a licence is granted, a schedule has to be supplied, and, if this is not done, there is a penalty. I do not think that it is a heavy penalty, the maximum being £5. The following subsection adds, however, that
"Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or on behalf of a licensing or police authority."
It is not open to one of the public to institute proceedings, and any objection must be made either by the licensing or the local authority, and this penalty may be inflicted if the person responsible for the running of the omnibus does not comply with the conditions of the schedule.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord referred to the local authority; I think he meant the police authority.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, a licensing authority or a police authority; I am much obliged. The licensing authority is the local authority, except in the case of the London area. Clause 7 deals with another matter which is undoubtedly very important and has been very much discussed—namely, the limitation of the number of omnibuses. It has been suggested, and I might just as well put it to your Lordships whilst I am discussing the clause, that in some way the Bill might operate unfairly to what may be called the small proprietor. It is a very difficult subject. When you have regular services over regular routes it is, no doubt, much easier to deal with a company, or a society, or persons with a large number of omnibuses than to deal with a small proprietor who may have only a few. The first subsection states:—
"Where as respects any street or part of a street within the area consisting of the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District, the Minister is of opinion that by reason—
"(a) of the width of the street or part of the street or the density of the traffic thereon; "—
This applies to the illustration which I gave of such a street as the Strand—
"or"—
this has to be carefully followed—
416
"(b) of the existence of alternative facilities for the conveyance of passengers along the street or part of the street or in proximity thereto, or of the omnibus accommodation on the street or part of the street being excessive;"—
it is desirable that an order should be made, the Minister is given certain powers.
The meaning of these paragraphs is this. I will take the Bayswater-road as an illustration of my meaning. You have the underground railway running the whole way under the Bayswater-road, and you have also a service of omnibuses on top. I am not suggesting that this service of omnibuses wants restricting in any way at the present moment, but I am merely taking it as an illustration. Supposing you find that, either through the omnibuses which are running or through alternative methods of locomotion, the public are adequately served and that there is ample accommodation for them, that is a reason for not permitting what I might call a surplus of omnibuses which, if they were allowed, would be extremely inconvenient from a traffic point of view. In dealing with the public convenience as a whole you have to consider the two sides: on the one hand, what are the traffic facilities and the traffic accommodation and, on the other hand, what inconvenience will arise from overcrowded streets and overcrowded traffic? With those two considerations in view the Minister may, in the words of the clause,
"declare the street or part of the street to be a street in which the plying for hire by omnibuses ought to be prohibited or restricted either generally or during particulars hours—"
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are these Orders laid before Parliament?
LORD PARMOOR: I think they are, but I am coming to that in a moment. I have not vet reached that part of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg your pardon.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for asking.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Perhaps I might put a supplementary question? Are they included in the Third Schedule among the matters to be regulated?
LORD PARMOOR: I think they are. I have read the Schedule through, and it seems to me to be quite wide enough to cover this point. In answer to the question asked by the noble Marquess, when I come, as I shall come very shortly, to the question of the Regulations, I shall show that a point arises as to the powers of your Lordships' House, which ought to be properly safeguarded in a matter of this kind, and I will then deal a little more closely, if I may, with the questions put to me by the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount. Subsection (2) of Clause 7 provides that—
"Where the Minister has so declared any street or part of a street to be a restricted street—"
then the restrictions will apply to the proprietors of omnibuses. Here I wish to call attention to certain words in the latter part of paragraph (b), because they were introduced by the Committee in another place. They were not in the Bill as it was originally brought forward, but were introduced, no doubt, with a view to safeguarding the public interest. The paragraph thus describes the limitation which is introduced:—
"but so nevertheless, that the right so to ply shall not be limited to the omnibuses of one proprietor in any case where it appears to the Minister to be reasonable and practicable that the right should be exercised by other omnibuses also."
I told your Lordships that there was a suggestion— and not an unreasonable one—of a monopoly in the hands of the larger omnibus proprietors, and these words were put in by the Committee in the other House as a safeguard against such a monopoly being regarded as a monopoly conferred within the terms of the Bill.
The idea of the Bill is the exact opposite, but when you come to actual facts we all know what difficulties may arise, and consequently these words were put in to provide that, if you were restricting the number of omnibuses along a restricted route, you should not, as it were, leave that route in the hands of one proprietor, one society or one company, but, if practicable, that the right should be exercised by other omnibuses also. I do not think that there is any other point in this clause to which I need refer at length. It really contains only points of detail and procedure, to carry out the principle which I have suggested, but I might call
418
attention to subsection (5), which says that:—
"Before making an order declaring any street or part of a street to be a restricted street, or making any regulations under this section, the Minister shall give such notice of his intention to make the order or regulations, as the case may be, as he may think best adapted for informing persons affected, and shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report."
The scheme all through really is that the Minister shall refer these matters to the Advisory Committee, but the responsibility remains upon him, and upon him alone.
Those are really the two most important and, to judge by the discussions in the other place, the two most contentious clauses of the Bill Improvements may, of course, be made in your Lordships' House. Suggestions may be made, on a difficult matter of this kind, which would be an improvement, on the proposals of the Bill, but I suggest that at any rate the real basis of Clauses 6 and 7 is right. You have to have these restrictive rules, and you have to have the provision, in order that traffic conditions may be carried out adequately and in accordance with the public convenience. Clause 8 deals with the question of Reports to Parliament, and I do not think I need deal with that. Clause 9 is a penalty clause.
Clause 10 is "Power to make regulations." I pause here, because I think I shall find in Clause 10 the answer to the question of the noble Marquess. If it is not quite clear, it is a matter which will have to be dealt with at a later stage. The clause reads:
"For the purpose of relieving congestion and facilitating traffic in and near London the Minister may make regulations to have effect in the London Traffic Area, or any such part thereof or places or streets therein, as may be specified in the regulations, for any of the purposes or with reference to any of the matters set out in the Third Schedule to this Act, and special regulations applicable only at special times or on special occasions."
If your Lordships will look at the Third Schedule you will see that it is extremely wide, and includes a very large number of matters. If anything is omitted which ought to be in it, that will be a matter for consideration, but the Schedule is extremely wide, and when I read it through rather carefully it seemed, at first sight, to include everything. We are not allowed to interfere with street

419
markets, and before making these Regulations there are the ordinary provisions referring the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report.
Then we come to subsection (7), and I want to say at once that in a Bill of this sort, which is not a financial Bill, you ordinarily find the same provisions as regards the control of Regulations, both in the other place and in this House. As the Bill stands Regulations are only to be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons. I say at once that I am authorised by the promoters to say that there is no intention whatever of not placing this House on the same footing as the other House in regard to these Regulations. It is a matter which ought to be put right, and there is no objection to its being put right, and the omission will be put right. There is, however, another matter, and I would like the noble Marquess to consider this. These things are all placed upon what is called the affirmative principle. They do not come into operation until they have been passed and adopted by one House and the other. That may be a rather cumbrous procedure in a Bill of this sort. I think, as regards this House, there would not be any difficulty, but sometimes in such matters there may be difficulty in the other House. There are various members in the other House who take a perfectly legitimate interest in the subject, and the result may be that it is very difficult to get your Regulations confirmed. It is not for me to make any suggestion, except that whatever is thought right to do with regard to these Regulations it is clearly a case in which this House should be treated in the same way as the other House, and I am entitled to say, on behalf of the promoters, that that shall be done.
The Bill is to throw no expense upon local authorities. That is in Clause 11. By Clause 12, there are to be notice of, and inquiry into, accidents. I do not think there is much there to trouble about With regard to Clause 13, there is a provision which may remind your Lordships of a discussion which we had the other day, and that is that the powers or advantages conferred by this Bill upon the omnibus proprietor is not to be a factor giving rise to additional compensation, if the undertaking be taken over by a public authority and the question of compensation arises. I think
420
everyone will agree that that is proper, and notice is given at the time the Bill passes. Then there is the question of the particulars to be supplied by the licence holders. I do not think anything turns upon them, although there may be a question whether they are adequate or not.
There is only one other matter to which I need call attention, and it is in the Definitions Clause—namely, the definition of "omnibus." In the Definitions Clause "omnibus" means something more than the ordinary omnibus to which we usually attach the word. I am told that at the present moment there is no intention of applying the Regulations except to the ordinary omnibus, but if you have anything less than a general definition of this character you would always be having questions arising as to whether a particular vehicle came within this definition or not. Therefore, it was thought best to put the definition in wide terms. I have tried to combine an exposition of the principles of the Bill with a short explanation of the details by which those principles are carried out, and I now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I would claim your indulgence in endeavouring to persuade you to throw out this Bill, on the ground that I have had the pleasure and satisfaction for nearly thirty years of representing a London constituency, and that for an even greater time I have taken an interest in municipal affairs in London. We are all agreed that something has to be done with regard to traffic in London. The only difference we have is as to the method and mode in which that is to be carried out. I need not trouble your Lordships with any argument in favour of the necessity for something being done. Every one of us, day by day, sees that necessity and suffers from it, and we see also that the position is becoming rapidly worse. I believe that between 1922 and 1923 not fewer than 1,300 new omnibuses were put upon the London streets. I doubt if, with the strongest traffic authority carrying out this Bill in the best way, we should really get more than a palliative, because we

421
have this excess in vehicles, and every clay the object of the police and others is to try to put a quart of traffic into a pint bottle of route.
The position is becoming almost intolerable, and the only things which have made it tolerable are, in the first place, as I think you will agree, the patience, good temper and law-abiding habits of the public, and, after that, the efficiency of control exercised by the Metropolitan Police and the City Police. I remember that Mr. Choate, at one time the American Ambassador, when he returned to the States, was asked, as usual, what he thought of England and the English. He said h had not much to say about that; that they seemed on the whole pretty much the same as the Americans; but that the one thing he noticed which distinguished England from every other country was the white-gloved hand of the policeman. There, he said, without any physical force or any arms, with nothing but moral force behind him, the policeman, by the mere holding up of his hand, would stop the Duke or the costermonger That showed, at all events, he said, that the character of the British was law-abiding.
It is evident that more control is necessary. I agree with the Lord President that greater restrictions of various sorts, to some of which he referred, must be imposed upon the traffic of London. We are all agreed that something in the nature of a traffic authority, responsible and representative, must be created. If the Government had applied their minds to this matter, and had carefully thought out a scheme which was far-reaching and intended to be permanent, I think there probably would be no difference of opinion in regard to the lines on which it should be framed. But it is notorious that this Bill was not an effort of that kind. The Lord President did not refer to the matter, but noble Lord will remember that, about last March, there was one of those many strikes of essential services which either dog the footsteps, or are due to the presence, of a Labour Government. A Committee of Inquiry was appointed, and, after evidence had been taken, the bright idea struck the Chairman that if a strong traffic authority were created it would improve the position of what is called "the Combine," which would thereupon be enabled to pay higher wages. That
422
appealed to both combatants, who up till then had been unable to agree, and, on condition that the Government produced a Bill more or less carrying out that principle, they were prepared to come to terms. The Government gave that undertaking, and the strike came to an end.
But the Government, being a Labour Government, whatever they had said on the platform, had naturally thought out no scheme to deal with London traffic. They had to do something, however, and therefore they rummaged about in the Departmental pigeon holes and discovered a Bill which was on the stocks, and which might have been introduced by their predecessors. The Lord President, while he has dealt n some detail with the clauses of the Bill, has not dealt at all with the general principle underlying it. I am bound to say that I, for one, am amazed that a Labour Government should have introduced a Bill of this description, which is anti-democratic, non-municipal, and non-representative, and which places entirely in the hands of the Minister of Transport autocratic and tremendous powers—powers which are greater than have been proposed in any other Bill. I am sometimes inclined to think that, as a friend of mine said the other day, we have now in office a more Tory Government than we have had for many years. When I look at this Bill and the method by which it has been introduced, I am inclined to think that that is coming true.
The Minister evidently does not like the Bill, judging from one or two observations which he made. The Minister of Transport and the President of the Board of Trade, in the other House, said that they did not like all of the Bill. Is not that quite a new feature of Government Bills and of the principle of Government responsibility? I should have thought that if the Government introduced a Bill for which they were responsible, from whatever quarter they might have obtained, or stolen, it, they were, at all events, responsible for the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. It seems to me a new idea that the Government have a limited liability in regard to their own Bills. I will make an offer to the Lord President. His colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the President of the Board of Trade, do not agree to a considerable proportion of this Bill. They said so in the other House once or twice. If he will

423
kindly intimate to me the particular points on which his colleagues dissent from the proposals in the Bill I will put them down as Amendments, and ask his support for them so that the Bill can be improved.
I said that the Bill was undemocratic, non-representative, and non-municipal, and I will endeavour to prove that. I think all those who have cosidered this very important question would naturally have thought that if a Bill was introduced to deal with a matter which is, after all, primarily, indeed almost solely, a local government and municipal matter, they would have put the responsibility on the shoulders of those who are carrying out our local government business, in London and elsewhere. But not at all! The whole power and authority, as the Lord President has shown, has been put into the hands of the Minister of Transport. He can determine what travelling facilities shall be granted and what travelling facilities shall be refused. He can limit or prohibit the use of certain streets for certain traffic, and, what is more, he can grant what is called a franchise for the use of those streets, just as he pleases and to whomsoever he pleases.
In addition, the Lord President has pointed out that the Minister has to carry out the far-reaching Regulations which are mentioned in the Third Schedule. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to those Regulations. I think it will be recognised that every one of them is either clearly a police question or a question which ought to be dealt with, not by a Minister sitting in Whitehall, but by by-laws made by the local authorities. They are such questions as the routes to be followed by all classes of traffic, the prescribing of streets which are not to be used for traffic by vehicles, what classes of vehicles may stand in streets, the vehicles that are to be allowed to collect refuse, and the conditions subject to which horses, cattle, sheep and other animals may be led through the streets. Every single one of these is a matter which ought to be dealt with by the local authority, and not by a Minister.
We are fortunate at the present time in having a Minister of Transport—Mr Gosling, who is a very old friend of mine—who happens to be a representative of London, and who has taken great interest in London affairs for many years. We
424
are not likely to be so fortunate again. In the chapter of accidents we are just as likely to have a Minister of Transport from the Orkneys, or from the Land's End, who will neither know nor care anything about London traffic questions, and who will be governed—and that is the danger—by the permanent officials of the Transport Department, and will not be controlled at all by the municipalities. This proposal creates another of those hybrid bodies which have done so much to hamper and weaken the self-government of London, and which, as has been well said, have almost reduced it from the status of responsible government to that of a Crown Colony. I should have thought that the way of dealing with this matter was that, pending, and leading up to, the realisation of the ideal of what is called Greater London, you would have had a statutory body consisting of representatives of the London County Council, the City Council, and the neighbouring county councils, who would be empowered to carry out these duties.
So far, I have spoken of the powers of the Advisory Committee. But what does that body consist of? I do not think the Lord President referred to it, but we were told in the other House that this Advisory Committee will represent the municipalities in regard to this traffic authority. It is certainly only lip-service done to the municipalities. The Advisory Committee itself is officered, staffed, appointed, and controlled entirely by the Minister of Transport. Not only so, but he actually appoints the Chairman. The Committee consists of twelve ordinary members. Of those members three are Departmental and one represents the City Police; that is, four Departmental members out of twelve. Two members are to be selected by the Minister from the nominees of no less than twenty-eight borough councils in London; two are to be selected by the Minister from the nominees of the six neighbouring county councils, and one from the three borough councils throughout the area involved. That is to say that no less than thirty-seven local authorities are to suggest names to the Minister for him to select from them the names of five persons who are to serve on the Advisory Committee. I do not envy the Minister of Transport his task. He has to select those two members from the nominees of twenty-eight borough

425
councils and I should like to know how he is going to do it. Westminster, the leading City in the Metropolitan area, will claim one and Poplar will probably claim another. That does not leave very many for the other twenty-six councils who are involved. That is the indirect part of it.
The only direct part of the whole Advisory Committee consists of two members from the London County Council and one from the City Council; that is to say, three members out of the twelve are all that are directly elected by the constituent councils of local authorities. There again I think there will be some difficulty involved in connection with the London County Council. The London County Council, which represents something like 4,500,000 persons, is only allowed to put two members upon this Advisory Committee. There are three active Parties on the London County Council, as there are in your Lordships' House and in another place. Your Lordships know how jealous those Parties are that they shall be duly represented on any committee that is set up, and I think it will be rather difficult with but two members to give proper representation to the County Council on the Advisory Committee. I have shown, I think, that the so-called municipal representation is of the feeblest and slightest description
In addition to those twelve ordinary members, there are to be seven additional who, for all practical purposes, will be a portion of the Advisory Committee. I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord did not refer to them and defend their presence. Of those seven additional members, three are to represent what is spoken of in the Bill as "the interests of labour," and the other four are to represent what is referred to as "the interests of persons providing means of transport"; that is a euphemism for "the Combine" which is so powerful in London. That is to say, that seven of those additional members will represent the direct interests, on the one hand, of labour and, on the other hand, of capital, as against the two who are to form the municipal portion of the Advisory Committee That seems to show that the Bill is founded altogether on a wrong basis. It gives too much power to the Minister and does not give any proper representation or power, as it ought to do, to the various municipal bodies in London.
There is, however, another objection to the Bill to which no reference was made by the noble and learned Lord. The London Traffic Area stretches much too far into the country. The area suggested is twenty-five miles from Charing Cross. That is a new area. It does not correspond to any existing local area. It is purely artificial and arbitrary. It brings in a large number of rural districts and a very large number of places in which there is at present absolutely no congestion of traffic. I would ask the noble and learned Lord who moved the Second Beading of the Bill whether he would not be prepared to accept the proposal which was put into the Bill in Committee in another place but was rejected on Report—to take as the area the present Metro politan Police area.
LORD NEWTON: That was fixed eighty years ago.
EARL BUXTON: It was fixed eighty years ago, and it is a well-known area. It extends for fifteen miles. It is clearly defined and it works well. It extends far enough to deal with all these really difficult problems of congested traffic, as anybody who has studied these matters will agree.
LORD PARMOOR: There is congestion in different places in the area.
EARL BUXTON: I do not say there are not parts in which there is congestion, but it is in the centre—in the City, in the Strand, Oxford-street, Regent-street, and so on—where congestion exists, and I cannot believe for a moment that if that is properly dealt with, any extension of the authority to such places as Chertsey and Ware—I am taking the different quarters north and south—Sevenoaks and Watford, would give any possible assistance or relief to the centre of London in which all the congestion arises. At all events, the proposed area will lead to a very difficult problem. If you confine your area to the Metropolitan Police area there is no difficulty in regard to the police who, after all, have a very great deal of responsibility in regard to this traffic question. Once you get outside that area you have the difficulty of rival authorities, rival police, and all those complications which arise when a new and artificial area is set up. I would ask the

427
noble and learned Lord at all events to give his careful consideration to the matter, and if the House so desires, I hope he may meet the views which some of us take on this matter.
There is one other point to which I desire to draw attention because I look upon it as one of the grave and objectionable features of this Bill. I referred just now to the fact that in addition to the ordinary members who are supposed to represent but do not really represent the municipalities, there are to be seven additional members who, to use the words of the Bill, are to represent "the interests of labour" on the one hand and "the interests of persons providing means of transport" or what I may call "the Combine" on the other. That is an entirely new principle in local government. I do not think there is any other case of a local authority, created for the purpose of dealing with the public convenience and the public interest, having upon it those who have a direct pecuniary and financial interest in a particular policy which they are able to carry out under that authority. I need hardly say that I have no desire whatever to cast any suspicion or aspersion on "the Combine" or the workers—on the contrary—but that is not the point. The point is that it seems to me, at all events, to be objectionable that this species of representation should exist on a public body of that description. I told your Lordships' House how the matter came about. Lord Ashfield, in the course of his examination by Mr. Bevin before the Committee of Inquiry, said very frankly that if "the Combine" could be freed from competition he would be able to give the men the increased amount. It was on the strength of that statement that the Government gave an undertaking and brought in this Bill.
The Lord President has already shown that there will be restrictions of various sorts in different ways on the use of the streets. The Bill as it stands will be very much in favour of the larger authorities and the larger employers, "the Combine," and against the smaller men and the smaller individuals. So far as re presentation is concerned, there will be seven of those with the same interests—in the one case, wages, and in the other case, fares and profit—who will be able practically to dominate the Advisory Committee
428
as against the municipal element. I do not desire to argue in favour of unrestricted competition. On the other hand, we do want to avoid, I think, unrestricted monopoly. We have heard a good deal in the course of the discussions on this Bill of what are called "pirate" omnibuses. In my opinion those omnibuses are only "pirates" from the point of view of the larger combine. They are benevolent "pirates" so far as the public are concerned, and I think they have been of great use and advantage to the public in many ways. At all events, we want to prevent a powerful combination of both labour and capital being formed for the purpose of driving away all competition and obtaining a monopoly of the streets of London.
To my mind, this Bill is founded on a wrong basis. It goes contrary to the general principles of local government, and I fear that if it is passed, even though it is alleged to be a temporary measure, it will stand very greatly in the way of what we all desire, and what is the only solution of London difficulties—namely, what is called a Greater London. I regret that the Government should have introduced it at the present moment. I believe it would have been better if they had thought out a Bill which would have given greater control to municipalities and less to the Department. In these circumstances I beg to move the rejection of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the word ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Earl Buxton.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, this problem, though a grave one, is not a new one, and I may perhaps remind the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill that it was a considerable problem even in the year 1906. It was a problem which engaged the attention of repeated Committees then, at a time when the Government of which the noble Earl was an ornament was in power. Holding power as it did for eight years, a period during which the intensity of the problem steadily increased, the Government of the noble Earl did nothing at all. If the true remedy is to be found in the development of the powers given to the London County Council, surely the Government of that day, very much in sympathy with the London County Council

429
(as it is to-day), could have developed, first of all, proposals which would have made a contribution to the solution of the situation in which we then found ourselves, and which has been so much intensified to-day. The noble Earl says that strikes have dogged the efforts of the Government, and that those strikes are due to the existence of the Labour Government. I might remind the noble Earl that, after all, we did not put the Labour Government in power. The noble Earl and his friends undertook that responsibility, and they must, I suppose, support some of the disagreeable consequences, as the rest of us have to do.
The noble Earl went on to say that this proposal is non-municipal in its character. I do not know that I can assign a very precise meaning to his criticism. I suppose he means that the solution of it has not been committed to a purely municipal body. That is perfectly true. But the explanation is that the problem has far transcended the resources of any municipal body. There is no body, neither the London County Council nor any other body in this City, which, unless armed with powers of the general nature of those which are contained in this Bill, can with the slightest hope of success address itself to the solution of the problem which affects us to-day.
Then the noble Earl appeared to be struck, as if it were a particularly strong point in his view of the situation, by the fact that somebody had said in another place—somebody belonging, I suppose, to this Government—that he did not like all the Bill, and the noble Earl was inclined to diminish the necessary labours which he apparently proposes to undertake in the Committee stage by inviting the noble. Lord in charge of the Bill to indicate to the noble Earl what were the points that the noble Lord's colleagues did not like in the Bill in order that the noble Earl might put them down as Amendments in Committee. That is, in my experience, a somewhat novel procedure. I should have thought that the noble Earl would have been in a position himself to discover his own Amendments to the Bill, and to recommend to the House the respects in which he thinks it can be improved.
Is it a remarkable circumstance, having regard to the nature of the problem, that
430
progress has been so slow? The real truth is that our tactical control of transport in London has been the best in the world, while our strategical control of it has been almost the worst. When the noble Earl complains that this Bill is not a democratic Bill the only possible answer to make, without disrespect to the noble Earl, is that these are the last whisperings of Liberalism which is happily perishing from the face of the earth. He wants a democratic control of transport. What, democracy in the world has even been an adequate judge of the problems of transport? There never was such an efficient handling of transport in the whole history of the world as the handling of transport in the City of Berlin before the war, and how much had democracy to do with that? Let the noble Earl keep his democracy for things which really do not matter so much. When you are dealing with things which really affect the daily lives of the people you must have recourse to more serious agencies for alleviation and amendment. The proposals in this Bill are not, in my judgment, open to the charge, though I would face it if they were, made by the noble Earl.
After all, it is a somewhat significant circumstance that this Bill was contemplated and prepared by the late Conservative Government. They had the advantage of the Reports of about four successive Committees and two separate Commissions, and they were advised by those in the public service who, in their judgment, were most competent to advise them, and their advisers did not exclude municipal assistance. Then a new Government came into power. I should have been unwilling to miss this opportunity of making it plain that, in my judgment, this is the only Bill which up to the present this Government has introduced, or even contemplated, which possesses the slightest spark of utility or common sense. Having formed the view that this Bill can be favourably distinguished from its predecessors in these respects, I should, I think, be lacking in generosity if I did not rise to say a word in its favour.
But how it can be accused by the noble Earl from the seclusion of this House of being undemocratic I cannot understand. Undoubtedly, it received the support of the followers of the late Government, and it has actually been passed through

431
a House of Commons in which a Socialist Government is in power that the noble Earl and his friends placed in power. How can you in such circumstances say it is not democratic? How can you say it is undemocratic when the other House, so constituted, has sent it to us I It is certainly not undemocratic in its history. Nor is it undemocratic in its fundamental principles.
Let me examine it and see whether it is really undemocratic. What is its principle? It is that a Minister responsible to Parliament should undertake the whole burden of the task. What is there undemocratic in that 2 Am I less able to compel an answer from a Minister, if his actions be arbitrary or unwise, if he be a Minister or if he be the Chairman of a Committee of the London County Council? The noble Earl may have some friend of his who is a member of the London County Council and will be able to raise the point in the Committee. I have the inconceivably greater advantage, as a dweller in this City and very much exposed to its transport disabilities, that if any grave course is adopted to which I object I can come to this House, and a member of the House of Commons can go to the House of Commons, challenge the question of policy involved, and demand a justification and an answer.
Then I am told that there is something wrong in the constitution of the Advisory Committee. There is always something wrong about the constitution of every committee. It is impossible to imagine that one can suggest any method by which an Advisory Committee should be appointed to which the noble Earl could not find some niggling (if I might use the word) objection when once he has set his mind to that task. What is the objection to the constitution of this Committee? We are told that two members are to be selected by the Minister—I do not remember the exact proportions—some by borough councils, and so on, and that on the whole, in the noble Earl's democratic eyes, the constitution of the Committee is unsatisfactory. I am not very concerned about the precise method by which the Committee is constituted so long as men of experience and men who may be presumed to be efficient for the discharge of the duties are appointed.
It is said that the Committee will gain great power. Of course it will; Advisory
432
Committees always do. I know, for instance, in my own experience, that an Advisory Committee which in relation to the office of Lord Chancellor possessed very little real influence or power, nevertheless, in the actual working, acquired very great influence and power. They established precedent which successive Lord Chancellors adopted in questions which relate to the appointment of magistrates, and, of course, it is true that this Advisory Committee will gain great power. But the point is this; no one is the least likely to be appointed a member of such a Committee who does not possess some considerable promise of contributing to the solution of the problem, and it is far better that a Minister responsible to Parliament, and having the assistance of these experts, should deal with this problem than that we should find ourselves in the position in which we are to-day, which is the most scandalous of any city in the world. The problem of congestion is not quite so bad in London as it is in New York, but the explanation of that is geographical. The reason why the dimensions of the traffic problem in New York are graver than in London arise from the fact that the geographical site of New York is so much more limited, but the control in New York is incomparably superior to anything that has taken place in this country.
The noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill, and the noble Earl, made reference to a problem on which I wish to say a word or two. There is not one of us who has not suffered from the wanton and incompetent method in which, during the last few years, each year contributing a more aggravated record, roads have been taken up in the principal centres of London. One day we go down Regent-street and find that Regent-street is "up." Without the slightest co-ordination in these affairs you find that the only convenient alternative route to Regent-street has, with incredible and malignant foresight, been taken up by quite another authority. This goes on all over London, and in all the suburbs around London. I am told that there are about twenty-seven different authorities who have the power to take up different roads in London, that no single authority is ever consulted by another, and that not one authority knows what the other is going to do.

433
Your Lordships are no doubt aware of the practical joke alleged to have been played by a young man of ingenious fancy and perhaps more imagination than a capacity for useful work, who went out with seven of his confederates at Oxford dressed as navvies, and equipped with all the paraphernalia which is necessary to this kind of exertion on the part of the British workingman. There were pickaxes, all manner of tools, and barriers which they put round the scene of their excavations, and then they proceeded, by striking a blow at intervals of a quarter of an hour, finally to take up about one hundred yards of Oxford-street. I believe this story is not fiction but fact, and they proceeded for a whole day to dig up the entrails of a great British public authority before any body in the world discovered that they had no right whatever to discharge such a duty. I am glad we still retain a sense of humour, but I would much rather retain our thoroughfares.
It is elementary that you must have a unified authority. Only one question, therefore, remains. If there must be a unified authority, is that to be a Minister responsible to Parliament, or is it to be a Committee of the London County Council? I should have thought there could be no question about it. We are dealing here with what is incomparably still the greatest City in the world. It is quite impossible to dismiss our problems as if they were the problems of Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow. They are incomparably greater. The transport system of London, its freedom, its elasticity, is almost an Imperial problem in those days, when from all parts of the world visitors come to our shores charged with messages of high national and Imperial consequence.
Take another illustration. Take the "pirate" omnibuses. The noble Earl contemplates their invasion of our streets almost with positive pleasure. I do not know how often he avails himself of their services, or whether his interest is that of a benevolent spectator. I do not know whether he has studied this particular branch of the problem at all closely. This is the only City in the world in which any number of omnibuses may be put upon the streets by any private speculator who chooses to do so. The noble Earl is delighted with that; and I know why, or at least he ought to hold the view which I attribute to him, because it is obvious that
434
his whole speech was a muddled complex of the doctrine of Free Trade. I am intellectually satisfied that the reason why the noble Earl is in favour of the "pirate" omnibus is that it is the sole instance in our midst in which you can test that doctrine with some logical consistency.
What has actually happened in the case of omnibuses to-day? I do not know how many noble Lords are present this afternoon. There may be seventy or eighty. But supposing every one of your Lordships, as taxes are high, thought you would try to alleviate the position by starting a pirate omnibus. To-morrow there would be seventy or eighty more "pirate" omnibuses on the streets. Is it not obvious that there must be a limit to this? Where is that limit to come? Has not the moment arisen now in which that limit should be imposed, and imposed from a central authority? Observe what happens. Those who run the ordinary and general service of omnibuses do not merely take the best routes, they make an honest and sincere attempt to deal with the transport problem as a whole, and although they take the best routes they also take the worst in the sense that they are the least remunerative.
But what do the "pirate" omnibuses do? They come and litter our streets and make transport impossible in London. And upon what routes do they concentrate? They merely take a mile here, or two miles there, where the best of the whole traffic is found, making it almost impossible for a general system which caters for the whole traffic of London, good and bad, to carry on at all. I am told—though I am not closely aware of this—that the result of the present ludicrous system is that, whenever a great company which does attempt to satisfy the demands of the population as a whole, perhaps for a distance of twenty miles from London, finds that "pirate" omnibuses are attempting to deprive it in the very heart of the system, of those profits which alone enable it to supply the more remote localities, they immediately have to attach another omnibus to watch the "pirate," or possibly two omnibuses to prevent the "pirate" omnibus from getting any profit at all. This is, at least, not organisation; this is, at least, hardly worthy of that transport

435
system which, I think the noble Earl told us, was commended by a very distinguished American.
Examine another reaction of the matter for a moment, however short. Take the tramway system. The tramway system of London has, I believe, involved a debt of £22,000,000 or £23,000,000, and of that sum £20,000,000 are represented by the indebtedness of municipalities and are naturally reflected in the burden of our rates. What happens here? A large system of omnibuses made some allowance for the public considerations and the economical considerations involved in the existence of tramways, and accordingly they did not force themselves into competition which was unnecessary in relation to the total volume of traffic with the tramways in cases where the superior convenience of the omnibuses might, indeed, have remunerated them, but where it would have reacted most unfavourably upon the public and municipal finance of the tramways. But no such consideration affects the "pirate" omnibuses. They say: "Here is a piece of tramway, here are four miles in which there is a great deal of traffic which we can pick up. We have no responsibility for other routes elsewhere, so let us insinuate ourselves into these four miles of traffic and take all the profits of the tramways."
I am not in the least to be taken as one who, having given the best attention I can to the transport problem of London, believes that the last word of wisdom is stereotyped in the tramway system; in fact, I believe profoundly that we are in one sense living in circumstances of anachronism when we commit our locomotion to tramways. The tramway system is founded upon the old experience of the horse and of horse-drawn traffic, and the immense diminution of the energy necessary to propel any heavy vehicle which was secure by rails more than compensated for the immobility of the route and of the vehicle. But the moment you remove this consideration—and horse traffic has ceased to be a serious consideration and, indeed, is a rapidly disappearing feature in our municipal life—the only justification of the tramway system disappears, and undoubtedly the tramway system is doomed. But even if it is doomed, while there are £20,000,000 of municipal expenditure involved in it, while it does at present serve
436
a great national purpose in transport, do let us at least see, as those who are responsible for large public moneys, whether they be national or municipal, that while their rolling stock remains, however we may repent of the great expenditure which has been incurred, that the tramways are conducted without insensate and indefensible competition.
I ought to point out further, in reinforcement of my argument, that each year the tramways are running at a loss, Double-edged inferences may be drawn from that circumstance. I believe I am not wrong in saying—though I quote the figures from memory—that last year the loss on the tramways, which was in no inconsiderable degree due to the kind of competition of which I have spoken, amounted to very nearly £400,000.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It was about £300,000.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I think a different figure was supplied to me, because my memory is good in these matters. But let us put it at £300,000. When one reflects upon the present indispensability, until another system has taken its place, of tramway traffic in order to carry the whole of that population which must migrate each day from one part of London to another to earn its living, one must see at least that it is reasonable—and, if I understand it aright, this is the real purpose and object of the Bill—that there should be some unifying control which shall not only be able to say: "Here a tramway, here omnibuses," but which shall examine the circumstances as a whole and correlate the various parts of the system, and shall do so with the assurance and the guarantee that you have a Minister responsible to Parliament who must answer a Question in this House any day, if such a Question is proposed to him, and who is advised by a competent body of expert advisers.
I do not pretend, any more than anyone else, that I like the whole of this Bill. But then, I have never liked the whole of any Bill that has ever been brought in by any Government. I have always, on the contrary, been clearly of opinion that both Parliament and the country would be greatly the gainers if 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the Bills introduced into Parliament were burnt before they left the Clerks at the Table. But, in as much

437
as this ideal has seemed to me to be impossible of attainment during nearly twenty years of a Parliamentary career, I realise that one must discriminate and must take a Bill as a whole, examine the difficulties and inconveniences in relation to which it is proposed as a remedy, and, having formed an estimate of those inconveniences and disabilities, ask whether that Bill, taken as a whole, is a real improvement upon the existing situation. Although, as I have said, I listen with little sympathy to the proposals that come from that Bench, and examine them with a preliminary and sustained distrust until I have really mastered them, I am bound to say that to this Bill I give my strong support.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am bound to say that I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Earl opposite, and with some of his points I hope to deal in a minute. I have taken pains to read this Bill, with, I hope, more success in mastering it than that of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, in the case of another Bill which we were considering recently, and I will say, in order to be perfectly fair, that I have found it not quite so bad a Bill as I was given to understand before I read it. But everything that is worth having in this Bill, and everything that is worth doing under this Bill, could have been done, it seems to me, in a very much simpler way. The really important point in this Bill is the power which it gives for regulating traffic. This, it appears to me, with the possible exception of fares, could have been perfectly well administered by the Commissioner of Police in the Metropolitan Police Area without any other authority or the creation of any new Department. I am certain that he would be competent to administer such powers to the satisfaction of the public, and that he would be sufficiently amenable to public pressure not to do anything which would cause grave dissatisfaction among the population. That is what the Bill might have done. It might have been a perfectly simple Bill giving that power.
But the Bill as it comes before us is very different, and I agree with the noble Earl who moved its rejection that it really offends almost every canon of the political faith in which he and I were brought up, and almost every canon of
438
the Labour Party itself. It sets up another of these hybrid authorities, these curious, amorphic authorities which strangle London government and which lead to London being, not a City but a collection of areas and a selection of authorities. We have seen the same thing in the case of the Water Board, and we have seen the same thing in other cases. There has always been a tendency in the Party opposite to prevent London developing into a great municipality and having the ordinary powers of the ordinary authorities which a great municipality should possess. They achieved that which, I think, might be called the most fatal blow when they erected their borough councils and gave them the authority of boroughs of which the central London authority was deprived.
It is said that it was impossible for these powers to be given to the London County Council, and it has been said that it is impossible because they are the owners of the tramways, which are a competing system. I do not think that is a really serious argument in the case of an authority like that which represents the whole of London. An authority which is amenable to the pressure of public opinion could not possibly favour their particular system at the expense of the general traffic. It is also said that it is impossible to give it to the London County Council because there is a greater area to be served. It may be rash to do so, but I am prepared in this particular case to make this further present to the supporters of this Bill, that in the case of Greater London—in the case of an area not coterminous with the administrative County of London, and which perhaps ought not to be coterminous with the Metropolitan Police District—it is better that the actual power should be given to a Minister responsible to Parliament, rather than to any hybrid body set up ad hoc but which you cannot get at directly by public opinion.
None the less I think the Bill as it stands is so bad as to be incapable of Amendment, and that far the best course would be to reject it at once on the Second Reading, and leave some better scheme to be devised. The noble Earl opposite, who accuses other people of a "muddled complex," does not suffer from a muddled complex or any other complex, but he admits that this question has presented difficulties to successive Governments, and

439
I may be told that no better scheme can be devised. Your Lordships' attention has been called to the origin and genesis of this Bill, and in every circumstance of its birth and progress we see conditions in which such a Bill should not be introduced. The noble Earl opposite claimed it as an inheritance from his Party. The fact that he supports it is enough to make me suspect it, and is a reason why the Labour Party should be suspicious of it. Then what were the circumstances in which it had its beginning—an extraordinary, ill-understood sort of bargain, or arrangement, between employers and employed of one particular service exploiting the London public. That is not the best atmosphere in which such a Bill should be born, and this Bill has been tainted with that atmosphere.
The Lord President, in his speech, claimed merit for certain ameliorations—for certain features in the Bill which were better than others—but he omitted to tell your Lordships that every feature in this Bill which has anything to commend it was introduced after a fight in Committee and against the wish of the Minister who was in charge of the Bill. Therefore, the Government can take no credit for that. I would ask your Lordships to observe some of the things which the Bill does. It provides that in the case of omnibuses these schedules shall be deposited, and one might have thought from that that the schedules had to have approval. In fact, the noble and learned Lord almost indicated that in some way it required the schedules to be approved, but if you look at subsection (5) of Clause 6, you will see this:
"On any such schedule being deposited with the licensing authority in accordance with the foregoing provisions, the same shall come into force."
The mere deposit of the list of routes causes it to come into force. It requires no approval by the Minister of Transport, it does not go before the Advisory Committee, and it does not require their approval. All that may happen is that copies are to be sent to people providing a regular service of omnibuses, and they may appeal to the Minister as to the number of omnibuses there.
Certain power is given to the local authorities within the area, or partly within the area, to appeal to the Minister against any schedule, on the ground that the stages are short and the fares are
440
high. There is, however, an extraordinary omission. Who is the natural guardian of the London public as a whole? Surely it is the London County Council, the central and best informed authority. The London County Council is given no power even to make representations on the matter of routes, or to raise objections to the fares, but any other authority included in the district may do so. The Borough of Guildford, for instance, may make representations about fares charged in the Strand, but the London County Council may not. Does not that show the sort of atmosphere in which this Bill took its rise?
If you turn to the last subsection in Clause 6 your Lordships will find that proceedings shall not be instituted except by or on behalf of a licensing or police authority. The Lord President said by the "local" authority, but that clearly was a mistake on his part, because so far as the entire Metropolitan Police District is concerned the licensing authority is the police authority, and the local authority in that vast and populous area is given no power to take proceedings. Oddly enough, the Minister of Transport is not given power to initiate proceedings if he thinks they ought to be taken. That is an illumination of the frame of mind in which this Bill was produced.
Then there are minor provisions as to which the Lord President said he would consent to a modification. The Regulations are to be laid before the Commons House of Parliament. I was sorry to hear that this was another of the clauses for which the Lord President took credit. It was carried against the wish of the Government and certainly against the wish of the Minister in charge of the Bill. I was sorry to hear the Lord President say that he proposes to whittle down that clause to being non-negative, instead of being positive approval. I hope your Lordships will not assent to that.
Clause 15 is a clause to which all motorists have the strongest possible right to object. For some extraordinary reason it has been proposed that the expenses of the Advisory Committee, and of the Ministry of Transport, so far as it assists the Advisory Committee, shall be paid out of the Road Fund. When this vast tax was first imposed on motor cars motorists allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the Government with the

441
promise that these taxes should be used not for the maintenance but merely for the improvement of the roads. The Government of the day won a reluctant consent from the bodies which professed to represent motorists. The amount of the fund was to be £8,00,000, but now it amounts to £12,000,000, and we are told that there is to be no reduction, and the Ministry is to be able to use it for any purpose for which they want money without coming to Parliament. It is a question for motorists, and if only they were as well organised as is the drink trade they would never submit to these imposts. It is a clear breach of faith and entirely without justification, and it ought not to appear in this Bill. But it is not a matter, probably, which your Lordships can amend, except by throwing the whole Bill out.
The noble Earl opposite said that it was a purely "niggling" objection to the Advisory Committee that it was constituted in a particular way; he did not care how. May I respectfully say that he ought to care how? This is an Advisory Committee dealing with public matters, and for the first time in our Parliamentary experience you are putting on this Committee, and you are giving power to, representatives of trade interests and of interests concerned in the matters you are discussing. That seems to me to be a very bad precedent, and one which is without any justification beyond the circumstances in which this Bill took its birth—those deplorable circumstances which, to my mind, make it desirable that this Bill should not be proceeded with, but that we should have a Bill which takes its birth in a calmer atmosphere and in better circumstances.
The Bill conflicts with every principle that has ever been laid down by the Party to which I belong. It does not give self-government; it does not give self-determination; it does not give authority to the local authorities to act upon matters in their own areas. It gives autocratic powers to a Minister—subject, it is true, to the control of Parliament; and it gives him a Committee to advise him, upon which persons financially interested in the result of their advice may sit. And, although it is perfectly true that there is a provision which says that in certain circumstances they shall not sit, there seems to be only one circumstance out of
442
about ten in which they are not to sit. In all the other cases they may sit on the Advisory Committee, and they may give advice. I cannot see any sound Parliamentary reason why you should admit these people.
What is the result? In common, I dare say, with others of your Lordships, I have received to-day a letter from taxi-cab owners, saying: "If interests are to be represented we represent 8,000 vehicles—a much larger number, and making a much larger use of the streets than do the omnibuses, but we are not represented on the Advisory Committee." Of course they are not, because they have not got the "pull" of this great "Combine." That is why. They could not exercise the same influence, and they were not the people who were concerned in the strike. But if you are going to have the interests represented you might represent them fairly. You might have a representative of the pedestrian, who should have something to say to the volume of traffic crossing the streets. It is a hopeless principle to go upon. There is no logic in the constitution of the Advisory Committee.
As to the area, I think that the Metropolitan Police area, old as it is, and curiously shaped as it is, is nevertheless a far better area than the very remarkable area provided in the Bill. I think your Lordships ought to look at it. It is in the First Schedule. Do your Lordships realise that it includes, for instance, the Borough of Guildford? Is the Borough of Guildford not capable of managing its own traffic? I pass through Guildford twice a week, and I am perfectly certain that the Superintendent of Police or Chief Constable, who looks after Guildford, is quite able to arrange the traffic himself, without the assistance of an Advisory Committee or of the Minister of Transport. Is it at all likely that you are going to prohibit or prescribe special routes for omnibuses in Guildford? I should think it is most improbable. If so, give these powers to Guildford. But how preposterous it is that, if you want to do anything in the Borough of Guildford, you have to come to a London Advisory Committee, on which they have no representation, and you have to have action taken by the Minister of Transport.
I can only say, for my own part, that I think the Bill is badly drawn. The only good thing is the powers it gives,

443
those powers are hardly sufficiently drastic, and they are very curiously limited. There is obviously a great deal of timidity in the way many of them have been drawn up. They ought to be taken with a bold hand. They ought to be taken as boldly as power is given to the police. There is a clause in this Bill which for the first time gives a policeman power to say to the driver of a vehicle: "You shall not go down, this street," or, "You shall go down this street." That is a very autocratic power, but it is absolutely essential if London traffic is to be regulated. The policeman on the spot should be given the power to be autocratic. There is no other way of doing it. And the powers of the Minister of Transport should also be perfectly definite and clear under this Bill. There ought to be no limitations on them beyond the Minister's sense of what is proper and the control of Parliament. For these reasons, if nobody else divides against the Bill, I shall be prepared to divide against it.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I have been very much interested, and somewhat amused, in listening to the debate which has taken place, at the search which has been made to find the author, or authors, of this Bill. The Leader of the House claimed it, of course, as a Government Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, said it emanated from the late Government. The noble Earl, Lord Buxton, seemed to attribute it to the "tube" strike. My Lords, I am the villain of the piece. This Bill is the Bill which was recommended by the Royal Commission on London Government, of which I had the honour of being the Chairman, which sat for a year and a half. Practically it accepts every one of the recommendations which we made. There has been some discussion with regard to the composition of the Advisory Committee. With two slight exceptions that Advisory Committee was recommended by us, after a very careful consideration of all the circumstances which were relevant to the great problem which we had to endeavour to solve.
This matter is not a matter of local government at all. I think the mistake which the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, made throughout his speech was to think of London traffic as a matter of local government. It is not a matter of London local government; it is a matter of national
444
concern. It goes a great deal beyond the confines of the City, of the area of the London County Council, of the Metropolitan Police area, even of the area of Outer London. And the proof of that is that during the hearing of the evidence we had representatives from all the neighbouring areas, and I think I am right in saying from every one of the neighbouring Counties—Essex, Kent, Surrey, Hertford. Middlesex, Buckingham even—all of them came before us, and said: "This traffic question is one which cannot be limited to London, but it has its reaction right down into our Counties." In some cases it was even suggested to us that places as far distant as Brighton, Southend, and Windsor were deeply interested in this question, and that the inhabitants of those places would lever be satisfied with any municipal authority which should be set up here in London.
We, naturally, considered the position of the London County Council and the desirability of establishing it or some large central authority as an authority, but its area did not go nearly far enough to cover the great problems which are contained in the question of London traffic. When we came to the consideration of whether it would be possible to constitute an authority for a larger area, enormous difficulties arose. How are you going to balance the amount of interest of, we will say, the Borough of Westminster and portions of Kent? You would say Westminster was more deeply interested financially than that portion of Kent which would come within the area of the authority. That means that you would have to give to Westminster a representation three or four times as great as you would give to Kent. If you begin to manipulate the figures in that way you will see that you arrive at a gigantic body to administer these matters. We came finally to the conclusion that it was a hopeless thing to establish a directly elected authority. The area would be too large. There would be some ten millions of population. In order to keep the body within reasonable limits you would have to have, we will say, twenty, thirty, or fifty representatives, and each representative would represent a vast number of constituents, so vast that he could not possibly be in touch with them.
Then there is the expense of having a special ad hoc election for the purpose of

445
returning representatives to the authority I have described. When all is said and done, what security have you that representatives returned on the democratic system would know anything at all about the problems of London transport? They might be returned for political reasons. One other suggestion was made, and I think the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, favoured it, that there should be a small body selected from the elected representatives of the different, local authorities. There is a vast number of local authorities within this Outer London area. If you are going to select a representative from each of those, who is going to select them? Presumably, the Minister of Transport. It would be a very invidious task for him, and when he had selected them, again there is no security that there would be any continuity of policy whatever in that body. We were, therefore, driven to accept the position which the Government has embodied in this Bill—namely, that the responsibility must rest with the Minister of Transport himself, but, in order that he may be assisted and guided, he should select the representatives of certain interests which are more particularly concerned with this problem and by that means he would make sure that he would get those who, if they were not experts at first, would become experts upon this very difficult question and would be able to assist and advise him.
I am not responsible, and my Commission is not responsible, for a great many of the details which are embodied in this Bill which, I have no doubt, are open to considerable question and debate. But as to the general lines upon which it is built—namely, the responsibility being placed upon the Minister of Transport and the recommendations as to the interests from which the advisory experts are to be drawn—we are responsible, and I am certain that the great majority of my colleagues will approve of what I have said here this afternoon and will approve of the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. May I say, in conclusion, that it is very often thrown in the teeth of Royal Commissions that they sit for a long time and that nothing ever happens—that they are used as a method of shelving questions. I hope that your Lordships will not follow the advice of the noble Earl who spoke before me and shelve this question, but, the Commission
446
having laid its egg, I trust that you will sit upon it (in one sense) and that it will produce a bird which may be of some use in assisting to solve the problems of greatest London traffic.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I do not know that I can go quite so far as the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill. There are many points in the Bill which I think are good, although, in my opinion, it needs a good deal of amendment in Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, referred to the Royal Commission of which he was Chairman. I would like to take your Lordships back to the Royal Commission on London Traffic which sat in 1905 and reported in the same year. On that occasion evidence was taken on all the questions with which this Bill deals and the whole subject was very fully gone into. Those of us who were students of traffic at that time warned the Government of the day, and have constantly warned Governments since, that the problem of London traffic would be aggravated very seriously as time went on. To-day it is a far more extensive and difficult problem to solve than it vas in 1905.
There was a curious slip made by the Lord President when he was explaining this Bill. It may have been that he was reminiscent of the days when he was one of the shining lights in the Committee rooms of this House, and when I had the honour of listening to him. He talked about the "promoters" of this Bill. Surely this is a Government Bill, and if it is a Government Bill there are no promoters. I suppose he would say that the noble Lord, Lord Ashfield, possibly, and his friends are in a sense promoters. I do not think that Lord Ashfield ever acknowledged that he was, although he may have had a good deal to do with the inception of the Bill. But it was a rather curious slip and may be said to have let the cat out of the bag.
It is true that the streets of London are rapidly becoming impassable. That is due, as other noble Lords have said, to many causes. One of the causes to which allusion has been made is the power of numerous statutory authorities to dig up the streets and as the noble Earl has referred to it, I am obliged to make this confession to your Lordships' House. I was privy to the digging up of

447
the street to which the noble Earl referred, and I will tell your Lordships the circumstances under which it was done. It was not Regent-street, it was Throgmorton-street that was dug up, and it arose in this way. I had been giving evidence on this very point of the disturbance of streets and, as I thought, the unnecessarily large number of authorities who could disturb the surface of the streets. I rashly said to one of my friends: "I believe that if you collected a few poles and trestles and a lamp and a watchman's hut you could go and dig up any street in London." My friend said to me: "What street do you propose that I should dig up? Do you think it would be a good thing to dig up Bond-street or Piccadilly?" I said: "I think that would be an unnecessary hardship on the travelling public; but you might dig up Throgmorton-street down which very little traffic goes, and that will inconvenience the travelling public very little." I confess this crime after an interval of twenty years, hoping that the Statute of Limitations applies in such a case.
We dug up the corner of Throgmorton-street. I do not mean that I dug it up with my own hands, but that my friends dug up Throgmorton-street. For no less than five or six days nobody came near it, which was a great disappointment to us. We hoped that we should see the officers of the law and various important people searching for the criminal. After about seven or eight days somebody came along who represented, I think, the City Highways Department and made certain inquiries. There was nobody to answer those inquiries who was at all responsible for digging up the street. To cut a long story short, every company which had statutory powers to dig up streets was written to and they all denied, with a good deal of emphasis, that they had anything to do with it, and the mystery was never solved. I make that confession to-day to your Lordships. It took some days to restore Throgmorton-street to a proper condition and there was a yawning gulf in the road until it was filled up.
A NOBLE LORD: Did the noble Lord fill it up himself?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I did not, but I was privy to it. I tell that story to confirm what was said by the noble Earl and to show how loose is
448
the control of the local authorities over such matters. There is a point in regard to that which might interest the House and which I only learned lately, having gone into the statistics. Every time wood pavement is pulled up in the streets the average time taken to replace it is nine or ten days. That obviously must be so, because you have to take out the concrete under the wood, and then have to lay clown the concrete again, and that takes from three to five days to harden. After that you have to replace the wood pavement. That shows what the difficulties are that are in the way. I hope to introduce an Amendment in the Bill to cope with this difficulty. In hardly any cases do the local authorities think it necessary to carry out their repairs at night, and regularly, at five o'clock, the workmen leave their task, and all night long no work is being done. We all know that all the great railways of the country, when any alteration has to be made to the permanent way, carry out the work at nights and on Sundays in preference to interfering with the day-time traffic.
The user of the road in this country is never regarded at all compared with other interests, and I hope, if this Bill passes, the user of the road and those who benefit from traffic on the road may at last have a good chance of getting their position attended to. When we are considering this Bill we ought to remember that it is only a palliative for a few years. If you turn to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on London Traffic of 1905 you will find that they say this at the beginning of their recommendations:—
"It is imperatively necessary, in the interests of public health and public convenience, and for the proper transaction of business, as well as to render decent housing possible, that the means of locomotion and transport in London and its adjacent districts, should be improved."
That was written nearly twenty years ago. The Report proceeds:—
"They are seriously defective, and the demands and needs of the public are annually increasing."
I ask your Lordships to pay particular attention to the following sentence:—
"The main obstacle to such improvement is the narrowness of the streets, which were not laid out in accordance with any general plan."
There you have the heart of the question. You may restrict traffic as much

449
as you like, you may force people to go underground, you may make all kinds of regulations for this or that vehicle, but until you get more carrying capacity in your streets, or add other streets over-ground or underground to the existing streets, you will never satisfactorily solve the problem of London traffic
Some allusion has been made to a bargain made, or implied, in this Bill between the London Traffic Combine, as it is generally called, and representatives of certain trades unions. One does not want to use hard words in this House, and I shall try to avoid doing so, but it does appear on the face of it as if a bargain was made. We have evidence of it in things that have been said in this and the other House. It really comes to this. Those who are interested in the "Combine" say: "We cannot pay you higher wages, or the wages you ought to have, because we cannot get enough profit out of our business to do so." In addition to that, this year these "pirates," so-called, which are really independent competitive omnibuses, have come on to the streets. I may say, in passing, that they are run mainly by ex-officers and ex-Service men, and that many of them already earn a fair livelihood. These omnibuses have come on the streets, and they have, I admit, skimmed some of the cream off the traffic of London.
A point has been made that these omnibuses only run where the traffic is thickest. Obviously that is what they would do. I do not think there is any crime in so doing, because if the people were not on the pavement waiting to take an omnibus an the period at which these vehicles run it would not pay to run the omnibuses, and they would be withdrawn. The fact is they were really wanted, and that is why they fill. That they only work for a mile or two one way or another, where the traffic is thickest, surely is an advantage to the public who wish to travel over that particular ground. The idea of those who have been trying to co-ordinate traffic, like my noble friend Lord Ashfield, is that where an underground train runs parallel with the street people should travel underground. That, I think, savours too much of compulsion. Why should you travel underground unless yon want to do so? The trains are exceedingly well run, but they are often half empty. I think the average human being
450
prefers to travel in sunlight rather than in electric light, and he prefers to travel on those excellent omnibuses which are provided by Lord Ashfield's "Combine." If he wants to do so I do not see why he should not. It has been said: "Why do you not travel in trains from A to B?" My answer to that is that very often the train does not take you where you want to go, and that seems to be an insuperable objection to travelling by it.
There is not one word about monopoly in the Bill, but I think, in regard to the clauses which deal with the omnibuses, if there is no monopoly now monopoly will very soon grow out of those clauses. It is obvious to any one who has studied the history of London traffic—it may or may not be for the good of London—that the dominant concern, which at the moment is the London General Omnibus Company, has nearly always bought up or absorbed the smaller concerns. I dare say it is a good thing that they should have done so, but the result has been, until lately, that there have been no independent concerns at all except the tramways of the London County Council. It is a rather interesting point in connection with the tarmways of the London County Council that the competition of the "Combine" has forced them to improve the tramway service enormously, and at the same time, in many cases, to lower their fares. But no one would ever travel in a tramcar who could travel in one of the excellent vehicles provided by my noble friend Lord Ashfield.
I should like to pay this tribute to the London General omnibus, that there is nothing like it anywhere else in the world. I have studied traffic in New York, Boston, and Paris and many other capitals of the world, and I assert to-day that there is no city in the world which has anything like such good traffic facilities as we have. In addition to that, there is no motor omnibus in any great city in the world which can compare with ours. The drivers of our omnibuses are, in my judgment, the best drivers on the road. They are more considerate, and you can depend more upon what they will do, than the drivers of almost any other vehicle on the road. The omnibuses are well sprung, and I may say, as an engineer, that they are very well designed, and are altogether worthy of London, the greatest City in the world. But having paid that tribute, I say that they would never have arrived

451
at this state, unless they they had had to compete against the fierce competition of the London County Council trams.
The same thing may be said about the tramways which have also improved, but not to an equal extent. I do not say that they can go on indefinitely improving. But the conditions under which London traffic have been conducted in the last ten or fifteen years are those very conditions of free trade and competition in transport which have brought about this excellent state of affairs. No doubt we have suffered lately from congestion in the streets, but I am sure the House will not mind me pointing out to the noble Lord, Lord Ashfield, that it is largely an artificial congestion. During the last few months over a thousand new omnibuses belonging to the London General Omnibus Company have been put on the streets. I am not criticising the noble Lord for doing that from his point of view. Naturally, he says to himself: "If the 'pirate' omnibuses are going to try to skim the cream of the traffic I will be the first. I will, so to speak, peg out a claim, and when I have pegged out my claim I shall get a proportionate share." He is right to fight hard to retain the supremacy of his "combine" and to defend his own shareholders. I think I am entitled to say that the great congestion of London streets in the last six or eight months is due largely to the fact that over a thousand omnibuses have been put on, not to serve the London public but to keep off the rival.
Apart from the main principle of the Bill, there seem to me to be some serious blots upon it. In the first place, it is almost incredible, to my mind, that no provision exists for dealing with the most obstructive vehicle on the roads to-day—the tramcar, which is especially-excluded from the purview of the Bill, as also is the trolley car which, as most of your Lordships know, is a tramcar which does not run on rails, but is linked to an overhead cable and runs about all over the road. Take the other side of Westminster Bridge and the South of London, the most obstructive vehicle is the tramcar, and it is almost incredible that in this Bill tramcars are excluded from any Regulations which may be
452
made by the Minister of Transport and that they are not subject to any recommendations which may be made by the Advisory Committee. If you are to deal with London traffic at all, not in the limited way as under this Bill, you must include every vehicle on the road from the perambulator to the steam roller, and if you leave out the tramcar it vitiates the power you put in the hands of the Minister.
I know the stock answer to that is that the tramways are statutory companies like railways. But in this very Bill there is a provision for interfering with statutory companies—namely, water and electric light companies, and other undertakings, to which Lord Parmoor referred. If you are going to interfere with statutory companies like water and electric light undertakings, surely it is fair to interfere, in the interests of the public, with the rights of tramway companies. Consider how the matter will operate otherwise. Take a case which we all know well, that of the other side of Westminster Bridge. If the Bill passes as it stands, there is nothing to prevent the London County Council doubling the number of their tramcars on that route and blocking the omnibuses out altogether. There may be some arrangement, of which we know nothing, under which this is not to be done, but all we can do is to take the Bill as it stands, and the fact that tramcars are not included under the Regulations to be made by the Minister of Transport is a serious blot on the Bill.
Another blot on the Bill is that the area proposed to be under the control of the Minister of Transport for licensing public service vehicles is much too large. In the recommendation of the Royal Commission on London Traffic it was proposed that the area should be coterminous with the London Police area, or what is called Greater London. Let me give your Lordships some idea of that area. I will give you points East and West, North and South. East and West the area of Greater London is from Dart-ford in Kent to West Drayton in Middlesex; and North and South, from St. Albans to Caterham. That is an area quite large enough for the purpose of this Bill. But in the Bill it is proposed to go as far as Woking and Guildford and Sevenoaks, purely rural involved in that particular form of traffic, and if that districts.

453
The effect of this will be that if a carrier between two villages, or, say, between Guildford and Kingston, wants a licence he will have to get his licence from the authority in London, and it might be opposed by any one who runs a motor omnibus on that route. That is a monstrous shame. You want to encourage the small independent man to establish communication between villages and railway stations and bigger towns. One of the most beneficent effects of the cheapening of the motor car has been that the rural population is able to move about more than they did in the past. But the carrier will have to come to Loudon for his licence and he may be opposed by one of the London omnibus companies who happen to be running on the same route. That is a manifest injustice.
Another objection to the Bill was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In 1908, when Mr. Lloyd George brought in his first motor taxes, I was a party to what is called a Parliamentary arrangement. The organised bodies in the motor world withdrew their objections to the Budget of that day, and I was largely instrumental in getting my friends to abandon their opposition because we were promised by the Government of that day, and by every successive Government until now, that the whole of the money raised from taxes on motor vehicles should be applied to roads and bridges, and to nothing else. Now you are going to take money raised from the general motor taxation and apply it to the expenses, it may be £30,000 or £50,000 a year, of an ad hoi authority in the richest City of the world. Who ought to pay? The Royal Commission on London' Traffic said that it should be levied on the area which is to benefit, or on the vehicles themselves which ply within the area? It is a distinct breach of a Parliamentary pledge that money should be taken from this fund to finance the expenses of an authority in London.
What is the Government going to say if Manchester, Liverpool or Glasgow desires a similar Bill and wants to set up a similar traffic authority? Are you going to finance them out of the Road Fund? If you do it in the case of the City of London, the richest City of the Empire, how can you refuse it to Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool or Glasgow?
454
You must treat all equally, and in course of time you will have whittled away a large amount of the Road Fund for purposes which have nothing to do with the upkeep of roads. When you think of the poverty-stricken rural districts whose rates are now very high, who are crying out for money, I do not think you can defend the financing of an authority in London out of money raised all over the country. The House of Commons, irrespective of politics, was not altogether in love with this Bill; and I do not wonder. It has many bad points. The Government were frequently defeated in Committee on it, and many of the good points in the measure were put in.
I now come to the Advisory Committee. I think this Advisory Committee is largely "eye-wash." Noble Lords who were present when the Ministry of Transport. Bill was proceeding through this House will remember that Sir Eric Geddes, through the mouth of his representative, Lord Lytton, gave an undertaking that he would set up several Advisory Committees. Many of those Committees have never been called together. The one of which I was to have been a member has not been called together during the last five years, and others have only been called together two or three times. They were intended as "eye-wash," and they have become "eye-wash." I believe that this Advisory Committee, unless we strengthen it during the Committee stage, will only be one of those buffers placed between a Minister and his Department and the public to lull possible opposition.
I should like to have seen such a body set up as was set up in the case of railways. There you have the Railway and Canal Commission, consisting of eminent and impartial gentlemen, who decide between the public and the railway in matters of fare. This Advisory Committee is a mass of conflicting interests, and many interests are not represented on it at all. If it had been possible I, like the noble Earl, would have wished to see the London County Council given more power. I have always believed in encouraging the London County Council to deal with these matters, but the objection in this case is obvious—namely, that the London County Council are a tramway-owning authority, and would therefore be competitors. I quite

455
see therefore, why the Government and the House of Commons have not thought lit to make them the dominant force on this Advisory Committee.
Before the Bill proceeds further I should like the Lord President, or whichever noble Lord will answer from that Bench, to tell us if it is contemplated that there will be any increase in the competition with the present "Combine," or even a maintenance of the existing competition. I should be very glad if the Government would explain what provisions are to be found in the Bill to protect the public against an eventual monopoly. It certainly appears as if there may be such a monopoly, but Amendments may be inserted in Committee which will remove our fears on that score. As I have said before, this Bill, even if it achieves all that its advocates claim for it, can only be a palliative. What we want is more streets, not more Regulations, and this Bill is merely tinkering with the job for the time being. It may be that sometimes you have to tinker with a job until you can produce a real remedy, and on those grounds I should be ready to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. But let us understand clearly that it merely tinkers with the job, and that something much bigger and wider in conception will have to be introduced before we can really cure the difficulties of London traffic.
I think that, in considering this whole question, we have to cast our minds forward. London traffic is increasing, as regards motor vehicles alone, at a rate of over twenty per cent. per annum. In five years the traffic of London will, roughly speaking, have doubled. What is going to happen then? Is this Bill really going to cure our difficulties? Obviously it is not. Your Lordships know that the returns show that all over the country last year, as in the previous year, the increase of motor vehicles was over twenty per cent., and you probably know that in the United States there is already one motor vehicle for every twelve and a half people—indeed, I believe there is now a motor vehicle for every ten people—while in this country there is one motor vehicle only for every forty-two people. With a far larger number of miles of road in this country it is, I think, quite certain that in a few years the proportion of vehicles to population will be equal to that which
456
is found in America. In other words, you will have 4,000,000 motor vehicles instead of the 1,000,000 which we have to-day. I state these figures to show how important it is to look ahead in this question.
When we go into Committee on this Bill I, in common with other noble Lords, shall have many Amendments to put down, but I think it is fair to the Government and to those who are interested in this Bill that it should be read a second time, because it does provide for two or three years some amelioration of our present difficulties. It is in that sense that I hope the House will give it a Second Reading, but I hope at the same time that, when we come to the Committee stage, noble Lords will see how important this subject is, and that we shall be able, possibly in agreement with those who are now opposed to us, eventually to introduce Amendments to cope with the difficulties which have arisen.
I want to raise one other point, and then I have finished. It is a curious fact that in the composition of this Advisory Committee no representation whatever is given to the user of the private car, to the pedal cyclist or to the motor cyclist. We know that there are representative bodies which concern themselves with the interests of these classes of traffic. There is the Automobile Association, there is the Royal Automobile Club and there is the National Cyclists' Union. I do plead with the Government that these bodies should be represented on the Advisory Committee. After all, the people who pay the majority of the taxes to-day are the private owners, and they should be represented in a matter in which their interests are so largely affected. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to these points, and that the House in general, when we come to the Committee stage, will support those of us who are trying to improve this Bill.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, those who, like myself, have studied the debates in another place must have readily come to the conclusion that the opposition to this Bill is almost entirely political. Ever since this Bill was introduced it has been the subject of violent attack on the part both of the Liberal Party and of certain members of the Labour Party, each being anxious to prove that they were the real

457
and genuine friends of democracy. The Bill was apparently opposed for three reasons: first of all, because it was originated by Conservatives; secondly, because it relegates to a far distant future the project of a Greater London authority; and, in the last place, because, it was supposed, quite erroneously, to confer some sort of additional benefit upon my noble friend Lord Ashfield, and that which is known as the "Combine."
The rejection of this Bill has been moved by my noble friend Lord Buxton this afternoon, but I confess that I attach very little importance to his action. I doubt very much whether he will proceed to extremities. I look upon his action in moving the rejection of the Bill as being due to his anxiety to vindicate, so to speak, the position and the vitality of the Liberal Party. When the noble Earl finds fault with the Bill because it is not sufficiently democratic, I think the answer is perfectly plain. If this Bill is advanced enough for the Socialist Lords who sit upon the front Bench opposite, surely it must be advanced enough for the fastidious democrats who occupy the Liberal Benches. As a matter of fact, the Bill is a compromise between something really useful and the ideals of democracy. As I understand it, the original idea was that this Committee of which we have heard so much should be a Committee of experts presided over by a representative of the Minister of Transport. It has grown into a large Advisory Committee, of which we have heard a great deal this afternoon, consisting of something like twenty members. If I might presume to offer an opinion, the criticism that I would pass upon that Committee is that it is far too large, and, whatever happens, I hope that there will be no addition to its numbers.
But when I hear the criticism, of which a great deal has been made this afternoon, that it is not sufficiently democratic in its constitution, I wonder how many people besides certain members of this House, of the other House and of the London County Council, care twopence how this body is constituted. Does the unfortunate "strap-hanger," or the person who narrowly escapes being run over in the street, or the person who cannot get to his destination, pause to think whether this is the result of the authority
458
not being sufficiently democratic? My firm belief is that this is a matter which never crosses peoples' minds. All that they really want is that London traffic should be properly managed, and I will go so far as to say that they would submit willingly to the autocracy of my noble friend Lord Ashfield, or of any one else, if he would give them what they really require.
Much criticism has also been passed on the ground that this is supposed to be an extreme instance of bureaucracy. I am not in favour of bureaucracy myself, nor an admirer of Government control in any shape or form as a rule, but you have this Ministry of Transport and you cannot get rid of it. The Minister of Transport is, so to speak, "dug in," and the Ministry of Transport, let me remind the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, is an inheritance from the Liberal Government. If we cannot get rid of the Minister of Transport, surely the best thing we can do is to make use of him. I entirely agree with what has been said by one or two speakers this afternoon, that with a responsible Minister in charge of this particular authority it will be far more easy to get redress, if redress is required. As for the idea that his Council is going to consist of a Jot of subservient people, who will obey his orders, I imagine that the result is going to be the direct opposite. Unless the Minister wants to make his life a burden he will take every opportunity of sheltering himself behind his Council.
I am not going to deal at length with the details of the Bill, but there is one object sought by the Bill to which no allusion has been made at all, and which is of great interest to the public. This is a measure required in the interests of public safety, although I do not think that any one has mentioned that fact at all. I observe that Mr. Sidney Webb, who is the leading statistician in this country, upon the Second Beading of the Bill said that the streets of London are more dangerous than our coal-mines—that there are far more accidents in them. I should be sorry to tie myself down to an assertion of that kind, but when it is made by a person of the status of Mr. Sidney Webb it is a point well worth considering.

459
Although I, as may be gathered, am emphatically in favour of the passing of this Bill, I recognise its imperfections, and the first and principal imperfection which strikes me is that it is only a temporary measure. Its duration is only to be for three years, which seems to me a totally inadequate, period for the carrying out of what it professes to be going to do, and if no one else moves an Amendment dealing with that point I shall myself do so. Then we have the point with regard' to tramways. It really is perfectly inexplicable to me that the question of tramways has been carefully avoided, and I can only suppose that it must be the result of some secret negotiations with the London County Council. If I am not mistaken the tramways carry something like twenty-five per cent. of the travelling population of London, and I trust that this is one of the points which will be raised in Committee.
There are, to my mind, two ridiculous provisions in this Bill. By Clause 14 every owner of a vehicle, no matter what it may be—even a coster's donkey cart—is apparently to be called upon, under heavy penalties, to disclose his pecuniary commitments and his investments. I suppose this provision has been inserted in order to make sure that these people are not interested in what is known as the "Combine," but it is a kind of provision which is likely to give a great deal of trouble to the small people for whom we have heard so much sympathy expressed this afternoon. One other point seems almost equally ridiculous, and that is that, so far as I can understand from the Bill, every Regulation must be submitted to both Houses of Parliament. I confess that this seems to me a perfectly unnecessary safeguard, and it is a point which might well be dealt with in Committee. As regards the Bill itself, I cannot understand anybody seriously objecting to it, more especially if they object to it because they nourish in their own minds the idea that one of these days there will be established a Greater London authority.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I should like to make a very few observations on this Bill Lord Ullswater has disclosed himself as being the villain of the piece as regards the shaping of this measure. I may claim to be the preliminary villain of the piece, because so long ago as 1909
460
I brought up a deputation to Mr. Asquith, and I got a very sympathetic answer from Mr. Asquith; but I was not in the least deceived by that sympathetic answer and I knew quite well that nothing could be done. I think one reason why nothing was done for many years was that the Liberal Party of that day came up against the special difficulty which has been mentioned in the discussion this evening, and that was whether they were going to set up a bureaucratic authority, if that was the phrase, and not going to make use of popularly-elected bodies like the London County Council. It was the opposition of the London County Council, or the friends of the Liberal Party on that body, which led to nothing being done for many years.
Even at that time, fifteen or sixteen years ago, the London traffic problem was a very great one, but it was a pigmy problem as compared with the problem, with its immense ramifications and new methods of transport, with which we have to deal to-day. I suppose we are all agreed that this traffic has got to be controlled. We are agreed that it is intolerable that streets can be taken up at different times by different authorities. We are familiar with the statistics as to the dangers of crossing the streets and as to the number of street accidents We are familiar with the interlocking of traffic, and so on, and the only question is what is to be the particular authority that shall have this control. Now, reference has been made to control by popularly elected bodies. I do not share to the full the feelings about popularly elected bodies expressed by Lord Birkenhead, but there have been strong reasons why some people think it is impossible that these bodies should control the London traffic. One was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ullswater, and that was that the area over which the traffic had to be controlled was necessarily vastly greater than the area ruled over by the London County Council.
There is another reason. The London County Council has the conduct of one particular form of traffic—namely, the tramways. The interests of the ratepayers are necessarily involved in that particular form of traffic, and if that particular form of traffic were in danger of being antedated or superseded, you could not get anybody to believe that the County Council, having the interests of

461
their ratepayers at heart, would be able to act quite fairly to other forms of traffic. That body was therefore ruled out. Then there comes a question suggested by Lord Buxton, as to whether some kind of combination could not be arranged between the London County Council and other authorities all round. I have had a great deal of experience of negotiating, from the point of view of the London County Council, with the circumjacent bodies, and I can only say that it would be almost hopeless to try to construct in that way an authority which would be able to determine these difficult problems.
Thus you are really thrown back on a Minister and an authority of that kind, and I cannot believe but that among the different suggestions that have been made as to the authority something of this kind is the best. I know that great contumely has been thrown upon the proposition by Lord Buxton, but I think the main charge he brought against, it was that it was borrowing an idea from the Conservative Government, which, of course, would not necessarily prejudice me against the proposal. And Lord Russell told us that all the principles of the Labour Party had been scrapped in supporting this particular Bill. I was rather surprised at his simplicity in supposing that the Labour Party were going to carry out their principles in office.
I have only two observations to make upon the details of the Bill. One is a matter of importance, and it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. It concerns the Advisory Committee. We have seen a great many advisory committees set up which were more decorative than advisory. I trust that it may be possible to secure that this Advisory Committee really shall advise, and that the Minister of Transport will not go his way, and come to his own decisions without availing himself of the suggestions and assistance of this Advisory Committee. I doubt whether it is possible to secure anything of that kind by Amendment to the Bill. It must, I think, be controlled by the particular working of the Act.
I do not think we have had any explanation from the noble Lord who introduced the Bill as to why the Bill is limited to two or three years. I regret that limitation, because I can hardly think that this Advisory Committee can really formulate their
462
plans or look far ahead if they know that the Bill is going to last for two or three years only, and that at the end of that time they are going to be superseded by some other body. They are described as a make-shift body, and it is very difficult for a body so branded at the start to deal with foresight with so difficult a problem as that of London traffic.
With regard to the question of the area, which has been very much criticised by some speakers, I am certain that that wants very careful examination. Possibly, at first sight, there is something to be said in favour of so confining the area that it can be managed by one police authority. But one has had so much experience in the past of the danger of not looking far enough ahead in the arrangements to be made that I hope that my noble friend Lord Montagu, before he tries to do his best to limit the area, will consider very carefully whether, with the tremendous growth and increase of traffic, it is wise, at the outset at least, to take too small an area for the proposals of this Bill.
I am afraid I differ to some extent from Lord Newton in regard to his suggestion that the Regulations should not be laid on the Table of the House. I was going to make a suggestion of another kind. It may well be that some of the detailed measures in the Third Schedule are not of great importance, and that they might be left to be dealt with by the Minister, but there are other proposals of very considerable importance—for instance, where it has to be decided whether the omnibuses belonging to certain proprietors alone should be allowed to ply for hire on the streets, or whether certain proprietors should be allowed to ply and others should not. As far as I can understand, the Regulations so made need not be laid on the Table of the House, but I think the noble Lord has already indicated that, if that is not so, he will alter it so that they should be laid.
LORD PARMOOR: I indicated that I would be quite willing to look into it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it would be very unfortunate if these matters, some interfering very seriously with the rights of private enterprise, should be entirely dealt with by the authority itself, and that your Lordships should not have some opportunity of pronouncing upon them.

463
The only question we have to consider to-day is whether this authority should not be set up. I think it would be a deplorable thing if the Second Reading were not carried. After fifteen years, at last a Bill has been produced which, though it may not be the original conception of the Labour Government, does represent an enormous amount of work and agreement and conciliation. I am certain that if it cannot be dealt with this Session it may be put off for another ten years, and you will have continuing for all that period this state of chaos and disturbance and ill-regulation which it is astounding that the patient people of London and the surrounding districts should have tolerated so long.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I should like to say how much I am in agreement with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, who, speaking with all his authority, referred to the advantages which by free competition the people of London have hitherto enjoyed. If these omnibuses, whether belonging to the "Combine" or private owners, were not carrying passengers they would be taken off the streets, for they must earn a profit. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, asked Lord Buxton whether he ever went into an omnibus. I often go in them, and I always find them extraordinarily comfortable, and the personnel very attentive. I do it because I find it just as pleasant to sit in an omnibus in a congested street as to sit in a taxicab, seeing the threepences being dotted up on the taximeter.
I agree with Lord Montagu in thinking that no traffic arrangements can do away with congestion. These routes which are so congested at the present time ought to be regarded as main trunk railway routes, and we should allow some routes to be devoted to through traffic and others to general traffic. I believe it will be necessary also at certain hours of the day to say that private cars should not be allowed to go down those particular routes. As, owing to the weight of taxation, I have not a car in London, perhaps I do not speak impartially. I have a car, but I certainly would not go down Piccadilly in it at certain hours of the day. I believe that some measure of this kind will be necessary, and, as Lord Montagu said, you will have to look at something much bigger than mere
464
temporary traffic arrangements. I agree with Lord Newton and others that it would be perfectly ridiculous if the tramways were to be exempted from the purview of the body set up.
EARL BUXTON: There has been con-considerable difference of opinion with regard to details, and I hope that the Government will consider them in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Can the noble Lord say when it is proposed to take the Committee stage?
LORD PARMOOR: I propose to give plenty of time, and I certainly should be open to negotiate with any one in order, if we can, to limit the matter as far as possible. I was going to suggest Tuesday week. I think that would give plenty of time for the putting down of Amendments.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, before moving that this Report be now received it would be convenient if I told your Lordships in a sentence or two what the substance of the Amendments is. They are all drafting Amendments, or else they are Amendments of a technical kind. They involve no question of principle at all, excepting one. Since the Committee stage further negotiations have taken place with the small heritors. The Government have tried their best to be very careful to regard the interests of these small heritors, and they have done so. As your Lordships may remember, they are small people who have paid under £2. They are compelled to redeem, but on very easy terms, and, as the Bill stood, they were under personal liability. That left the Church in an uncomfortable position because there might be small heritors who had gone off to British Columbia, or California, or South America and the

465
Church would be in a position of considerable embarrassment in pursuing them. We have solved the difficulty by making the payments of the small heritors not personal debts but stipendiary charges and we have arranged that the redemption is to be upon extremely easy terms—eighteen years' purchase; or if they please they may pay small instalments in addition to the payment they make for stipends in the course of the eighteen years. That wipes the thing off, and the position of the small heritor now under the Bill is one which is to be greatly envied. That is the only Amendment of substance. It has been agreed between the Church, the heritors and the Government, and I think your Lordships may take it as an agreed Amendment. I now move that the Report be received, and I shall afterwards move the various amendments.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I desire to corroborate what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has said as to the meeting which was held between the heritors, the Government, and the Church, and I think all parties are to be congratulated upon having come so quickly to an agreement. The Amendments are of a technical character, and I hope that your Lordships will agree to them.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Report of Amendments received accordingly.
CLAUSE 8.—(Payment of standardised stipend):
Amendment moved—/p>
Clause 8, page 5, line 30, leave out ("become redeemable") and insert ("been redeemed ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
CLAUSE 10.—(Augmentation, of stipend):
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 6, line 18, leave out from ("or") to the end of line 20, and insert ("a standardised stipend if payable may").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Teind Rolls.
(3) The Court of Session shall make by Act of Sederunt, with the approval of the
466
Treasury, such rules and regulations as may in the judgment of the Court from time to time be necessary to regulate the amount of the fees to be paid to the Clerk of Teinds in connection with the preparation, issue, and adjustment of the teind rolls and the time and place of the payment of the said fees. The expenses of the preparation, issue and adjustment of a teind roll including where necessary the expense of the preparation of a state of teinds shall be borne by the heritors in proportion to the amount of the total teind applicable to the lands of each heritor but any heritor whose teinds have been valued and surrendered before the date of standardisation shall be relieved of his share of the expenses by the General Trustees.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to omit all words after "fees," where that word secondly occurs.
Amendment moved—
Clause 11, page 8, line 13, leave out from ("fees") to the end of the clause, and insert ("the expenses of the preparation, issue and adjustment of the teind roll, including where a state of teinds is necessary the expense of the preparation thereof, shall be apportioned among the heritors (including any heritors whose teinds have been valued and surrendered before the date of standardisation) in proportion to the amount of the total teind applicable to the lands of each heritor. The share of such expenses apportioned to any heritor, other than a heritor whose teinds have been valued and surrendered as aforesaid shall be payable by such heritor, and the share of such expenses apportioned to any heritor whose teinds have been valued and surrendered as aforesaid shall be payable by the General Trustees").—(The. Lord Chancellor.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
Provisions where stipend does not exceed two pounds.
14. Where the standard value of the stipend exigible from the teinds of the lands of any heritor in a parish as shown by the teind roll does not exceed the sum of two pounds:—
(1) the heritor or other person liable in payment of the said stipend shall redeem the same either

(a) at the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas which shall occur not less than three months after the date on which the teind roll of the parish becomes final for such consideration or in such manner as may he agreed upon between the person so liable and the General Trustees; or

(b) by payment to the General Trustees at the said term of Whitsunday or Martinmas of a sum equal to the standard value of the said stipend multiplied by eighteen; or

467

(c) by payment to the General Trustees of a series of thirty-six equal half-yearly instalment commencing at the said term of Whitsunday or Martinmas, each instalment being equal to one-half of the standard value of the said stipend with the addition of seventy-five per centum:

(2) All payments due to the General Trustees in respect of the redemption, of a stipend shall be recoverable by the General Trustees from the heritor or other person liable for such payments as a personal debt:
Amendments moved—
Clause 14, page 10, lines 25 to 31, leave out paragraph (c) and insert the following new paragraph:
("(c) by payment to the General Trustees, along with each half-yearly payment of the said stipend during a period of eighteen years commencing at the said term of Whit-Sunday or Martinmas, of a redemption instalment equal to seventy-five per centum of the half-yearly payment of the stipend, which redemption instalment shall be recoverable by the General Trustees in the same maner as the half-yearly payment of the stipend.")
Clause 14, page 10, lines 32 to 36, leave out subsection (2).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15:
Valuation and surrender of teinds.
15.—(1) After the passing of this Act the provisions set out in the Sixth Schedule to this Act which relate to the obtaining of valuations of teinds and the surrender of valued teinds shall have effect for those purposes and the present law and practice relating thereto shall cease to apply but without prejudice to any proceedings taken before the passing of this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: "or to any proceedings which may be taken within twelve months after the passing of this Act for the approbation of reports of sub-commissioners relating to the valuation of teinds ".
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 11, line 7, at the end of the line insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 (Transfer of right in parish churches and manses):
Amendments moved—
Clause 25, page 18, line 11, leave out ("in a summary manner")
Clause 25, line 13, at end insert ("deal with the application in a summary manner and shall")
Clause 25, line 18, leave out ("one year") and insert ("three years").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 28 (Transfer of Parish churchyards):
Amendment moved—
Clause 28, page 22, line 16, at end insert the following new subsection:
("(2) Where the powers and duties conferred and imposed by the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act, 1855, are exercised and carried out by a local authority other than the parish council, the foregoing provisions of this section shall, with the necessary modifications, have effect as if that authority were named therein instead of the parish council, and any expenses of the local authority due to the operation of this section shall be defrayed in the same manner as expenses under the said Act of 1855 ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 35, page 25, insert the following new clause:—
Provisions with respect to certain registration districts.
"36. Where under the provisions of the Births. Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Acts, 1854 to 1910, the powers and duties by those Acts conferred and imposed on parish councils belong to and are discharged by the heritors, it shall be lawful for the Sheriff, upon the application of the parish council of any parish wholly or partly comprised in the registration district, or upon the application of the Registrar-General of Births. Deaths and Marriages in Scotland, to regulate and determine all questions as to the right to elect a registrar for the registration district, and all questions as to the assessments to be levied for registration purposes within the district; and it shall also be lawful for the Sheriff to regulate and determine all questions as to such right of election and such assessments in any case where two or more parishes or portions of parishes may hereafter be united into one registration district; and any decision of the Sheriff under this section shall be final and not subject to review."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37:
Saving for obligations of relief.
37. Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect any obligation to relieve the heritor of any lands from liability in respect of any stipend or augmentation thereof

469
exigible from the tiends of such lands, and any such obligation shall extend to relief from liabilty in respect of any standard charge over those lands.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the end of the clause "or in respect of any payments under the section of this Act relating to provisions where stipend does not exceed two pounds."
Amendment moved—
Clause 37, page 25, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 (Interpretation):
Amendment moved—
Clause 38, page 26, line 5, after ("or") insert ("other heritable rights.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedules:
Amendments moved—
First Schedule, page 28, line 5, leave out ("during") and insert ("for")
Second Schedule, page 29, line 11, after the second ("the") insert ("former").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.
  Provision relating to augmentation of stipend.
  2. In ascertaining the amount of the available teinds the victual teind and stipend shall be converted according to the average of the fiars price for the five years preceding the year in which an application is made, or, if that average is less than the standard value then according to the standard value.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit from the second clause the words "or, if that average is less than the standard value then according to the standard value," and insert:
  "Provided that—

  (a) if in the ease of victual teind that average is lees than the value as determined in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act, the victual teind shall be converted in accordance with that paragraph; and

  (b) if in the case of victual stipend that average is less than the standard value, the victual stipend shall be converted according to the standard value."

  Amendment moved—
  Fourth Schedule, page 30, line 31, leave out from ("made") to the end of line 32 and insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Fifth Schedule, page 32, line 10, leave out ("six") and insert ("eighteen").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule:

  SIXTH SCHEDULE.
  Provisions relating to the Valuation of Teinds and the Surrender of Valued Teinds.
  9. Any calculation as to the amount of any deficiency of stipend caused by a surrender in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule or as to the amounts of unexhausted teinds available to meet such deficiency shall be made on the basis of the standard value of the stipend.
  Amendments moved—
  Sixth Schedule, page 33, line 3, leave out ("one bundled") and insert ("fifty")
  Sixth Schedule, page 35, line 17, leave out ("six") and insert ("fifteen")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the ninth clause, to leave out "on the basis of the standard value of the stipend."
  Amendment moved—
  Page 36, line 14, leave out from (" made ") to the end of line 15, and insert:
  ("(a) so fur as the stipend is concerned on the basis of the standard value thereof; and
  "(b) so far as the value of the tiend is concerned, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Twelfth Schedule (Enactments repealed):
  Amendment moved—
  Twelfth Schedule, page 41, after line 12, insert:

  ("8 & 9 Vict. c. 83.

  The Poor Law, (Scotland) Act, 1845.

  Section 54, from "provided also" to the end of the section.

  "17 & 18 Vict. c. 80.

  The Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1854.

  Section 13.")

  —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know when your Lordships would desire to deal with the Third

  471
  Reading stage of Reading stage of this Bill, which, I hope, will be purely formal. Would next Thursday be a convenient day?
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Yes.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to inform your Lordships that the Second Reading of this Bill has been postponed.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I hope that the Second Reading of this Bill will not be taken on Monday, which is a rather inconvenient day. If it could be taken another day I think it would be for the general convenience of your Lordships.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I suggest that it should be put down for Wednesday next.
Order discharged: Bill to be read 2a on Wednesday, July 16.

HOUSING BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.
HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.

COUNTY COURTS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As this is a gather urgent Bill, I communicated with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and he has assented to my putting down a Notice of Motion to give precedence to this Bill on Monday, so that it may be in time for the Royal Commission that evening.

RE-ORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

TOWN PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, there are some Amendments to this Bill on the Paper, but they are really only corrections of Amendments made on a previous stage. I beg to move that those Amendments be agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are they on the Paper?
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: Yes.
Amendments moved—
Clause 4, page 4, line 17, leave, out ("or"), and after ("adoption") insert ("or making")
Clause 10, page 9, line 27, leave out ("or"), and after ("adoption") insert ("or making ").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Thomson.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, upon the adjournment I desire to put a question to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack arising out of something he said just now. He told your Lordships, quite truly, that, speaking on behalf of my friends, I said that I would raise no objection to the promotion of a particular Bill above its ordinary place in order that it may be ready to have the Royal Assent on Monday evening. One or two of us have asked ourselves this question—whether the Royal Commission should break into the sitting of your Lordships' House, as it did on a

473
recent occasion. If that is to be so, I should like to say on behalf of my friends, that we deprecate that practice. It was very inconvenient on the last occasion, as the noble Viscount I know realised, and there really is no reason for it. The House of Commons is in Session, and it cannot make any difference to them what time the break in their proceedings takes place. As to ours, we are early people, and adjourn in good time, and a convenient course is to put the Royal Commission down for about the time when your Lordships' House is likely to adjourn. I suggest for the consideration of His Majesty's Government, through the noble and learned Viscount, that that practice might be adopted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is a very convenient practice, and one, I think, which we ought to adopt when we can. Of course, the House of Commons, particularly when business is congested, like to have a little notice when we are going to summon them. Suppose we summon the Royal Commission for a quarter past seven on Monday.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: We have already made arrangements to put it down for seven o'clock.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it is entirely a new departure on the part of His Majesty's Government that Royal Commissions should be allowed to interrupt our proceedings here. It has been done only on one occasion in my recollection, which is longer than that of the noble Marquess. Royal Commissions have always taken place after our proceedings, and I am quite sure it would be no inconvenience to the other House that it should do so on Monday. May I also make this point? Our sittings are not prolonged, and it is a serious thing if a quarter of an hour is taken away. On the other hand, the other House sit all the afternoon and evening, and it does not matter so much to them if the Royal Commission takes place at the end of our sitting. I think it will be for the general
474
convenience that that should be done. The Royal Commission can be put down for seven o'clock, but the House of Commons need not be summoned until our business is finished.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Earl is wrong in saying that on only one occasion before have our proceedings been interrupted by a Royal Commission. My information is that they have been pretty frequently interrupted in the past. It is certainly convenient to the House of Commons to let them know the hour at which they shall come. No doubt, we could put the time a quarter of an hour later if it is desired; it would make no difference to them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we need not fight about few minutes. I think the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, is quite right. There is really no reason why the Royal Commission should take place exactly at the minute fixed. I have not seen the Order Paper, and I am not sure how long the business on Monday is likely to take, but a quarter past seven, or thereabouts, would be a good time. I deprecate, however, that it should be an absolutely fixed time. It might be that we were just finishing a Bill, and that in five minutes more we would be at the end of our task. It would be unwise and inconvenient to adjourn for twenty minutes, and then have to come back again to do five minutes' work.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, so far as I have anything to do with it I need scarcely say more than this. I have been accustomed to deal with this matter for nearly forty years, and the noble Earl opposite may be quite sure that I shall not do anything that in the least varies from what has been the long practice of this House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (BARBOUR SCHOLARSHIP) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
HASLINGDEN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
SPENCER SETTLED CHATTELS BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
SCARISBRICK ESTATE DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES HEAD CORPORATIONS (BRIDGE) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [H.L.] (Blackpool Order) do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Croydon Corporation Bill and the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Bill; read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments
476
had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
London County Council (Money).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to meet forthwith.
Bill reported with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (MEASURING INSTRUMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Tuesday, July 22.
LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
House to be in Committee on Tuesday, July 22.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.
To be read 3a on Monday next.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BLACKPOOL ORDER) BILL. [H.L.]
To be printed.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee (on re-commitment) on Wednesday next.