Sitting of 29 July 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Brighton Corporation Water Bill,
Thames Conservancy Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 21st July, and agreed to.
Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Midlothian (Calder District) Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

POOR LAW RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy ordered, "of a Statement of the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law Relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of January, 1924 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 121, of 1923)."—[Mr. Wheatley.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SHIPS' VALUABLES (SAFETY DEVICE).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the question of the provision of a safety device for ships' valuables has received the consideration of his Department; whether he is aware that the Dutch Royal Mail already insist upon such a
    1858
    provision, and that both America and France are prepared to give consideration to this provision; and whether the Board of Trade will be prepared to give consideration to the provision of such a device, provided that it does not entail expense upon British shipowners not similarly borne by foreign nationals?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): The provision of a safety device for ships' valuables is a matter in which the Board of Trade have no statutory powers, and they have taken no action with regard to it. If the Noble Lord will be good enough to send me the information to which he refers, and will explain why it is, in his opinion, desirable for the Government to intervene, I will go into the matter.

    DOVER HARBOUR (REFUGE DUES).
    Mr. SYDNEY JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that since the Dover Admiralty (or outer) Harbour has been taken over by the Dover Harbour Board, refuge dues are charged on windbound vessels which receive no advantage from the harbour erections and the cost of their maintenance; and, having regard to the desirability of doing nothing to deter masters of sailing vessels from putting into and remaining in the harbour in the interests of safety of masters and men while weather conditions are unsafe, will he make representations to the Dover Harbour Board, urging that the new imposition on weather-bound sailing ships be withdrawn?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I have been asked to reply. The Dover Harbour Board were authorised by Parliament last year to levy half dues on vessels putting into the harbour in distress, which in all the circumstances are, I think, not unreasonable. I am not prepared, therefore, to urge the Harbour Board to withdraw the charges levied, but I have communicated a copy of the hon. Member's question to them.

    FOOD SUPPLIES AND PRICES.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information that the price of bread will be still further advanced in the near future?
    Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade if there is likely to be a deficiency in the Canadian wheat crop this year; and, if so, will he state from what other countries the deficiency is likely to be made good?
    Mr. WEBB: An announcement has appeared in the Press that the price of bread in London is to be increased on Monday next from 9d. to 9½d. per 4-lb. loaf. So far as can be foreseen at present, although the abundant world crops of wheat which were secured last year will, in all probability, not be repeated this year, there is no reason to anticipate that the requirements of the world in respect of bread will not be met. Until the harvests of the Northern Hemisphere have been reaped, it will not be possible to say whether wheat prices are likely to continue high.
    In this connection, I should like to refer hon. Members to a summary statement. regarding the world's wheat supplies which appears in the current issue of "The Agricultural Market Report," prepared and edited by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. This Report indicates that the Canadian crop must fall short of last year's yield; but as it is too lengthy for an answer, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with a table of bread prices for recent years.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a rise in London flour of 7s. since July; that the Canadian Government are instituting inquiries into the matter; and will he say whether he is taking any steps in the matter?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the state of the supply of wheat justifies the rise which is now taking place?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it desirable to interfere with the natural law of supply and demand?
    Mr. WELLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a report from Canada that the wheat crop is likely to be short by 120 million bushels this year, and will he say what are the Government plans to encourage wheat growing in this country?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 300,000
    1860
    fewer acres under wheat cultivation in this country than in 1922?
    Mr. RATHBONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the rumour now current that the Government of this country intend to buy a lot of wheat because they are afraid of a shortage next spring, is untrue?
    Mr. WEBB: There is no truth in the suggestion made in the last supplementary question. The Government are under no apprehension as to the provision of wheat for the ensuing year. As stated in my answer, there is no reason to suppose that there will not be ample wheat in the world for the requirements of the wheat-eating population. It is true that the prospects of the Canadian wheat crop are not so good as last year, but it would be premature to give a figure of the number of quarters that it will fall short when it is harvested. [HON. MEMBERS: "What will be the price?"] I cannot predict anything as to the price. The price of bread is nearly as high as it was at this time two years ago, during the whole of 1922. Since then, we have had a fall in price, but it has gone up again to something under one penny less than it was nearly throughout 1922. Any apprehension of an exceptional rise is, I think, unwarranted. In answer to the hon. Member who asked me whether the Government would take steps to interfere with the law of supply and demand, I should say, certainly, with all my heart, if only I knew how to do it.
    Following is the Report referred to:

    EXTRACT FROM THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET REPORT.
    Prepared and Edited by the MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
    Friday, 25th July, 1924.
    Agriculture at Home and Abroad. World's Wheat Supplies.
    Preliminary official estimates issued this month of the wheat production of North America this season indicate a very substantial reduction as compared with last season, particularly in the case of Canada.
    United States.—The Deport of the Department of Agriculture relating to the position at the first of the month, puts the total estimated production of winter and spring wheat at 396 million cwts., which compares with 421 million cwts. last year, and 472 million cwts., the average of the preceding five years. During the last few seasons the quantity retained for home consumption and seed has averaged about 325 million cwts. On the basis of these figures the surplus available for export from this year's crop would be over 70 million cwts. It appears

    1861
    to be generally accepted, however, that the crop has improved since the 1st July, and that the next official estimate should show an increase on the July estimate.
    Canada.—The area under wheat is officially estimated at 21,616,000 acres, a reduction of a million acres as compared with last year. The first official forecast of the production is 171 million cwts. which compares with a final return last year of 253 million cwts. Recent weather conditions in that country have given a more favourable appearance to the crop, and the official estimate is now generally regarded as being too low, although the crop must fall far short of last year's yield. Home consumption and seed requirements in Canada average about 52 million cwts. annually, so that a substantial surplus will, on present appearances, be available for export to Europe.
    As regards the Southern Hemisphere, although it is as yet much too early to attempt to forecast the yield, prospects so far are favourable. In Argentina the area under the crop is reported to have been largely increased, as much new land has been brought under cultivation, and the appearance of the crop is stated to be promising. In Australia, conditions generally are stated to be satisfactory, although in some parts more rain is needed. The surplus from the Indian crop harvested last spring is substantial, and liberal exports are anticipated.
    In Europe, the outlook is lees encouraging. A severe drought in Rumania during May affected the growth of the crop, and it does not seem probable that much wheat

    AVERAGES OF THE RETAIL PRICES OF BREAD PER 4 LBS.

    (As shown in the returns received by the Ministry of Labour and published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.)

    —

    1921.

    1922.

    1923.

    1924.

    s.

    d.

    d.

    d.

    d.

    1st January

    …

    …

    1

    3¾

    10

    9

    8½

    (31st Dec, 1921).

    1st February

    …

    …

    1

    3¼

    9½

    9

    8½

    1st March

    …

    …

    1

    1¾

    10

    9

    8½

    1st April

    …

    …

    1

    1½

    10¼

    9

    8½

    (31st March).

    1st May

    …

    …

    1

    1½.

    10¼

    9

    8½

    (30th April).

    1st June

    …

    …

    1

    1½

    10¼

    9

    8½

    (31st May).

    1st July

    …

    …

    1

    1½

    10

    9

    8½

    (30th June).

    9

    (7th July).

    1st August

    …

    …

    1

    1½.

    10

    8¾

    —

    (2nd August).

    1st September

    …

    …

    1

    1¼

    9¾

    8¾

    —

    1st October

    …

    …

    1

    0½

    9¼

    8¾

    —

    (30th Sept.).

    1st November

    …

    …

    0

    11½

    9¼

    8½

    —

    1st December

    …

    …

    0

    10½

    9¼

    8½

    —

    will be available for export from that country next season. Reports from Russia are contradictory, but on the whole it will not be safe to regard that country as a source of supply during the coining season In importing countries although snore favourable weather conditions have prevailed generally during the last two months it seems doubtful whether the production will come up to the average, and the import requirements during the twelve months may therefore be as large as in the season now closing.
    The general position therefore is that, as compared with last season, there is a shorter crop in North America, but that the prospects in the other principal overseas sources of supply are on the whole not less favourable than they were at this time last year, and the quantities of the last crops still available for export are fairly substantial: while on the other hand the requirements of importing countries over the next twelve months will probably remain about the same as in 1923–4. The factor most influencing the outlook at present is the uncertainty as regards the Canadian crop, and to this is to be attributed the recent rise in prices aided, no doubt, as is usual in such circumstances, by market speculation. But there is no evidence at present that the world's supplies of wheat during 1924–5 will be under requirements, and although prices may for a time continue to be at higher levels than in the corresponding period of last year, and to that extent improves the position of our own producers, there is no justification at the present time for suggesting a coming shortage, still less a scarcity of wheat."
    Mr. CLARRYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the articles of food and comparative prices in December, 1923, and in June, 1924, which have shown any material alteration, and are comprised in the total food index figure of wholesale prices, namely, 159·7 and 159·3, respectively?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade those staple articles of popular food on which, since the beginning of the year there have been increases of prices, together with the reasons therefor; and whether his official advices indicate that any such increases are to be expected in the near future?
    Mr. WEBB: As the answer contains tables of figures, showing many decreases of price as well as increases, the hon. Members will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the tables:
    The average price quotation for June, 1924, used for the purposes of the Board of Trade Index Numbers of Wholesale Prices, which showed a change exceeding 15 per cent. as compared with the average quotation for December, 1923, were as follows:

    Increases of more than 15 per cent.

    Increase per cent.

    Potatoes, at Birmingham

    132·8

    Apples*

    104·2

    Potatoes, at London

    98·1

    Oranges

    82·9

    Mutton, English

    22·8

    Beef, port killed

    21·6

    Barley, Californian malting

    20·1

    Mutton, Scotch

    19·2

    Wheat, British, "Gazette average"

    17·1

    Bacon, Irish, green sides

    16·8

    * In the cases of apples and onions, the descriptions available in December and June are not identical. The December quotations relate to Nova Scotian apples and Spanish onions, the June quotations to Australian apples and Egyptian onions.

    Decreases of more than 15 per cent.

    Decrease per cent.

    Cod

    16·2

    Butter, Danish

    18·7

    Cheese, New Zealand

    20·0

    Cheese, Canadian

    20·6

    Pork, British

    21·1

    Butter, New Zealand

    21·9

    Haddock

    25·0

    Bloaters

    27·9

    Sugar, Tate's cubes, duty paid

    35·5†

    Milk

    36·5

    Onions*

    36·7

    Sugar, fine crystals at Glasgow, duty paid

    37·0†

    Eggs, Danish

    52·1

    Eggs, Irish

    56·9

    † The reduction of the duty on sugar affects these figures. The ex-duty prices fell by 22·6 per cent. in the case of cubes and 24·0 per cent. in the case of crystals.

    No trustworthy information exists as to the influences operating in the various markets to bring about such changes, nor am I in a position to forecast the course of food prices in the near future, either generally or in detail.
    Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade if there is any increase in the quantity of wheat and flour imported into this country at the present time from the Argentine as compared with last year?
    Mr. WEBB: During the first half of this year the imports of wheat and wheat flour, registered as consigned from Argentina, amounted to 13,036,000 and 149,000 cwts. respectively. These quantities show increases, as compared with the first half of 1923, of 2,482,000 cwts. in the case of wheat and 52,000 cwts. in the case of wheat flour.

    COMPANY REGISTRATION (BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHARE HOLDERS).
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider introducing legislation to prevent a company registered under the Companies Act, all the directors and shareholders of which are of foreign origin, from using

    1865
    the word British as the first word of its title; and whether, in the interests of British trade, he will introduce legislation to the effect that any company registered under the Companies Act in the title of which the word British appears must make provision in its memorandum or articles of association that at least 51 per cent. of the capital shall remain in the possession of British subjects?
    Mr. WEBB: The suggestions made by the hon. Member will receive consideration when the next revision of the Companies Acts is undertaken.

    ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to give special consideration to the reparation claims of seamen which became belated owing to their continual absence on service abroad or which have been rejected through failure of claimants to answer requests for further information which did not reach them owing to absence at sea?
    Mr. WEBB: Very special consideration was given by the Royal Commission to claims by seamen and their dependents, as is shown by paragraph 14 of the Final Report of the Commission. All belated claims will now receive the most careful consideration in connection with the £300,600 provided for solatia to belated claimants.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    DYESTUFFS.
    Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a statement with regard to the proposed agreement between the British Dyestuffs Corporation and the Interessen-Gemeinschaft; and if he has any information to the effect that the latter company is seeking to make a similar agreement with the French manufacturers of dyestuffs?
    Mr. WEBB: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the matter mentioned in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, it is understood that an arrangement was made some years ago between
    1866
    the Interessen-Gemeinschaft and certain French dye manufacturers, but I am not aware of any contemplated new arrangement.
    Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that an attempt has not been made to set up an international trust?
    Mr. WEBB: I think there is no question of a complete international trust. We have in this country independent producers who are not at all inefficient.

    GLASS INDUSTRY.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a request on behalf of workpeople employed in the glass trade to see a deputation to place before him the facts concerning the present position of that trade; whether he has seen the deputation; and if he will state what is the value of glass goods imported into this country during the 12 months ending 30th June, 1924, and the amount produced in this country during the same period?
    Mr. WEBB: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. So far as the deputation wished to discuss the continuance of the duties which, under the terms of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, automatically expire on 19th August, I felt that no useful purpose would be served by a discussion. But as regards the matters which the deputation wished to raise regarding the supply of glassware under Government contracts, I offered to take these up with the Departments concerned on receipt of the necessary particulars. This offer is still open. As to the last part of the question, the total net imports (i.e., imports less re-exports) of glass and glassware into the United Kingdom registered during the 12 months ended 30th June, 1924, were valued at £4,362,000. Pending the completion of the Census of Production now being undertaken, there is no information available regarding the amount of glass produced in this country during any recent period.
    Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the destruction of British trade in this country is the only problem that the Government have got for helping unemployment?
    Mr. WEBB: I am not aware that there is any destruction of trade in this country.
    Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS: Is there any inherent reason why this four million pounds worth of glassware which is imported should not be made in this country?
    Mr. WEBB: In so far as it can be made in this country more advantageously than elsewhere, I see no reason.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any reason why poor people should have to pay more for glassware than is necessary?
    Sir F. HALL: Is there any reason why a working man should not have an opportunity of earning his living in his own country?

  BRITISH TRADE.

    COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the composition and the terms of reference of the proposed Committee of Inquiry upon British Trade?
    Mr. S. WEBB: Yes, Sir. I am glad to announce that Sir Arthur Balfour, of Sheffield, has been good enough to undertake the duties of chairman of this Committee, and the other members of the Committee are as follow:

    Mr. John Baker.

    Sir W. H. Beveridge.

    Mr. Henry Boothman.

    Mr. W. T. Charter.

    Mr. C. T. Cramp.

    Mr. Hugh Dalton.

    Sir Harry Goschen.

    Mrs. M. A. Hamilton.

    Mr. F. A. Hargreaves.

    Sir Norman Hill.

    Sir John Hindley.

    Mr. David Landale.

    Sir W. Clare Lees.

    Mr. P. J. Pybus.

    Mr. Arthur Shaw.

    Sir Allan Smith,

    Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith.

    The reply from one further proposed member is still outstanding, owing to his absence abroad.
    1868
    The terms of reference are:
    "To inquire into and report upon the conditions and prospects of British industry and commerce, with special reference to the export trade, and to make recommendations in regard thereto."
    It is proposed also to furnish the Committee with a memorandum which, without constituting a definition of the inquiry, may serve as explanatory of the subjects on which investigation is specially desired. I will have a copy of this memorandum circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir A. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the terms of reference sufficiently wide to enable the Committee to investigate first, the hours of labour, and the wages paid in competitive industries in the principal competing countries; second, the restrictions, if any, in force in this country and in other countries in competitive industries; and, third, the corresponding burden of rates and taxes in competitive industries in this and the competing countries? I hope that they will be sufficiently wide.
    Mr. W. THORNE: H the right hon. Gentleman is going to make inquiry into all the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend, will he also make inquiry into the amount of the product per hour per day by the British worker as compared with the worker in competing countries? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Then hon. Members opposite will come a cropper.
    Mr. WEBB: All the topics referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Sir A. Bean) will certainly be within the scope of the reference to the Committee, and this will be made clear when hon. Members have an opportunity of reading the explanatory memorandum which will be circulated.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the Mr. Dalton referred to the gentleman who is responsible for the issue of the pamphlet to which reference was made yesterday Further, as it was the intention of the Government not to appoint Members of Parliament to serve on this Committee, may not that be taken as an estimate of that gentleman's chances?
    Mr. WEBB: I have no information as to either of these supplementary questions. Mr. Dalton as an economist of

    1869
    distinction was asked to act on the Committee long before there was any question of his candidature.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very few of these gentlemen have any practical knowledge of these questions? Is he aware that most of them are theorists? Does he not think it advisable to put a representative of labour who has worked in industry and a manufacturer upon this Committee?
    Mr. TURNER: Is it not a fact that two of the members of the Committee represent the textile industry of Lancashire and Yorkshire, who have great experience of the work?
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Who represents the iron and steel trade on this Committee?
    Mr. WEBB: I would ask hon. Members to reserve their opinions on the names until they have them before them with their designations, and they may be glad to be relieved of any criticism until they have the names before them. Nearly all the names are those of gentlemen who are engaged, and have been a long time engaged, in the principal branches of industry.
    Following is the Memorandum:
    The first question to which the attention of the Committee should be directed is the present position of British overseas trade and the prospect of British participation in the markets of the world being such as to ensure sufficient and continuous employment and a satisfactory standard of living in this country. The examination of tendencies and developments in the markets of the world and also in the chief competing countries will be involved, together with an inquiry into the growth of competition with British goods in these markets, the likelihood of its continuance, and its probable consequences.
    The second question is the ability of British industry to meet competition under the conditions thus determined, and to adapt itself to changes in the nature of overseas demand. This involves an inquiry into British productive capacity and organisation, including the supply and efficiency of capital, labour and management, the present and future adequacy of raw materials and possible
    1870
    improvements in their utilisation, and the part played by the United Kingdom in new developments of industry, particularly those which are the outcome of scientific research. Matters to which attention might be directed are the present extent of large scale production, its possibilities and limitations; the efficiency of plant and equipment; power supply and transport as factors in cost of production; marketing organisation at home and abroad; and the current methods of industrial and commercial finance. It will be necessary, in addition, to take account of the effect of State regulative action upon costs and output.
    The third question is that of the relations between those engaged in production. This will involve inquiry into methods of industrial remuneration, the main causes of unrest and disputes, and the methods of avoidance or settlement of disputes, as, for example, co-partnership, co-operation, wages boards and voluntary arbitration, State regulation of wages, and compulsory arbitration and compulsory enforcement and extension of agreements.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    LIEUTENANT C. H. GLENDINNING.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position Lo state whether it is his intention to appoint a commission or committee to hold a public inquiry into the case of Lieutenant C. H. Glen-dinning?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Walsh): I have given this matter the personal consideration which I promised in the House on 20th May. The case has been examined by the Army Council, and I have now made my Report to His Majesty, under Section 42 of the Army Act.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what that means? Is there going to be an inquiry?
    Mr. WALSH: I stated to my hon. Friend months ago, in answer to a special request, that I would give the matter my own personal consideration. Not only did I make that announcement, but I am bound, under the law of the land, to act under Section 42 of the Army

    1871
    Act. That was the procedure which I promised to the House. That procedure I have adopted. I am bound to make a Report to His Majesty, and I must wait for His Majesty's decision before I can take any further action.
    Mr. LANSBURY: That is all right. We can wait and see.

    OFFICERS (TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS).
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers serving on temporary commissions with the Regular Army have been demobilised since 31st March, 1924; and what is the total number of such officers still so employed?
    Mr. WALSH: The number of temporary officers at present serving is 294, and the number formally "demobilised" since the end of March is 20.

    SANDHURST COLLEGE.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the Secretary of State for War what reductions in the establishment of companies at Sandhurst has been necessitated by the shortage of cadets; and what steps the Government propose to take to counteract the present disinclination of parents to allow their sons to seek commissions in the Army?
    Mr. WALSH: With effect from January next, the five existing companies will be temporarily reduced to four. As regards the last part of the question, Government policy on this important question cannot appropriately be dealt with by way of question and answer.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not one of the main difficulties the very high fees charged in Sandhurst?

    ARMY SERVICE CORPS (OFFICERS).
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for War what are the qualifications which entitle officers of the Royal Army Service Corps to draw corps pay; and whether officers who have passed the technical examination at the Royal Army Service Corps school of instruction at Aldershot are entitled to such pay?
    Mr. WALSH: The qualification which entitles an officer of the Royal Army Service Corps to draw corps pay is that
    1872
    he has qualified in the examination for Associate Member of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, or in any other examination which the institute accepts as equivalent to their own for the purpose of granting associate membership. The technical examination at the Royal Army Service Corps school of instruction does not qualify for corps pay.

    HIRE OF MARE, TERRITORIAL CAMP, PORTHCAWL.
    Mr. RHYSasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the claim of Mr. David Griffiths, Llwyndewi, Whitland, Carmarthenshire, for payment in respect of a mare hired out for the Territorial camp at Porthcawl last August; whether he is aware that the mare was returned on 27th August suffering from acute strangles, and that Mr. Griffiths refused to take possession of her in that condition; that the mare was eventually returned on 3rd October and that Mr. Griffiths is claiming 50s. a week from 12th August to 3rd October, being the agreed rate for the duration of the camp, and £10 damages, as the mare was not available for sale at the end of the summer; whether he is aware that repeated claims for settlement have been made; and whether immediate steps will be taken to investigate and settle the matter?
    Mr. WALSH: I have ascertained that the Territorial Association concerned did not hire the horse from Mr. Griffiths, but from a firm of contractors at Cheltenham who, I presume, obtained the horse from Mr. Griffiths in their turn. In these circumstances any claim which Mr. Griffiths may have lies not against the Department, but against the Cheltenham firm. In case, however, the hon. Member thinks that the Department has any moral responsibility in the matter, I may add that the firm from whom we obtained the horse have made no complaint to us; but have, on the contrary, stated that the horse was returned to them, after the camp, in good health and condition.
    Mr. RHYS: When a horse is hired out to the Territorial Army has not the man who hired out the horse to the Territorial camp some moral claim against the Department, and will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to see that justice is done?
    Mr. WALSH: No. That is exactly the point which I have endeavoured to submit to the House. The firm of contractors from whom the Territorial Association obtained the horse have indemnified the Association definitely against any loss due to sickness, injury or death. Therefore the claim, if any—into that particular point I do not propose to enter—of Mr. Griffiths is against the contractor and not against the Territorial Association.
    Mr. HANNON: Is not this a question that ought to be dealt with privately, and not by question and answer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes. We ought not to spend so much time over it.

    DEATH PENALTY (WAR SENTENCES).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War what was the nature of the assistance, if any, afforded for their defence to the 32 soldiers under 21 years of age upon whom the death penalty was inflicted during the late War?
    Mr. WALSH: This question can only be answered by reference to the individual cases. I am having them examined, and will communicate further with the hon. Member in due course.

    ORDNANCE WORKS, CHILWELL (DISCHARGES).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that of the present 268 moil employed in the ordnance workshops at Chilwell 31 are under notice of dismissal for the 30th, and that the remaining 214 will be discharged on or before 1st October; whether, in view of the fact that the majority of these men have spent the greater part of their business lives in the Army or Army Departments and have, therefore, very little experience in civilian business, special efforts are being made to find these men employment under the War Department; and if he will state how far these efforts have been successful in the case of men already dismissed from Chilwell?
    Mr. WALSH: I am aware that 23 men are under notice for discharge on 30th July and that about 200 others will probably have to be discharged by 31st October. I am not aware, however, that the majority of these men have passed their lives in the service of the Royal
    1874
    Army Ordnance Department, and are thereby unfitted by inexperience from undertaking other work. Chilwell was only taken over as an Ordnance Depot in 1919, and the large majority of the employés there have only been in ordnance service since that date.
    With regard to the last part of the question, no pre-War employés have yet been discharged from Chilwell, but when the necessity for their leaving Chilwell arises I trust that most, if not all, of them can be absorbed in other War Department establishments. I regret that it has not been possible to provide employment for the post-War men.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the War Office making any effort to obtain employment for these men?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: How many men have already been found employment? The right hon. Gentleman promised to find work for these men.
    Mr. WALSH: What I did promise—and what the Department is doing to the best of its ability, under exceedingly difficult circumstances, having regard to the vast number of unemployed in the ordinary branches of industry—was that we would do our best to find employment for those whom we have unfortunately been compelled to discharge. That we are doing.
    Mr. BETTERTON: How far has the right hon. Gentleman been successful in finding employment for the men already discharged?
    Mr. WALSH: I could not answer offhand.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I put that question on the Paper.

    LULWORTH COVE (WAR OFFICE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what are the War Office intentions with regard to the land they hold at Lulworth Cove?
    Mr. WALSH: The War Office have decided to exercise their powers of purchase under the Acquisition of Land Acts, but this will not preclude the resumption of negotiations for a lease of the land if suitable terms can be arranged.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand then that, having lost

    1875
    their cause before the Courts, the War Office are now going to fall back on those powers which were intended for the purchase of land principally for housing?
    Mr. WALSH: I do not know that the War Office has lost its cause before the Courts. So long as legal rights remain, they can always be exercised by private individuals or by a Government Department. We are going to proceed under the law of the land, which enables us to acquire land by compulsion, if necessary.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the War Office are going to remain in possession of this beautiful piece of country indefinitely?
    Mr. WALSH: Oh, no!
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What are you going to do?
    Mr. WALSH: What we are going to do is a matter for future policy.
    Sir K. WOOD: Did not the learned Judge who heard the case say that the War Office ought to vacate this land?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman not stated to the House that the War Office propose to exercise their rights of purchase?
    Mr. WALSH: I have also stated that that will not preclude negotiations for a lease, if a lease can be satisfactorily arranged.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is strong feeling in the country that this beautiful piece of land ought not to be purchased, or even leased, for a purpose of this kind?

  SCOTLAND.

    LOANS TO FISHERMEN.
    Mr. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the total amount of the 12 loans which his Department has approved of under the recent scheme for assisting Scottish fishermen?
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the very limited operation of the scheme for the provision of loans to the Scottish drift-net fishermen for the purchase of nets, due to the high rate of
    1876
    interest exacted and to the stringent conditions attaching to the loans, he is now prepared to modify these conditions and provide the loans at a lower rate of interest than 5 per cent.?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I propose to answer these questions together, seeing that the two appear to be directed to the same purpose. The amount approved at the time referred to was £413. I do not agree with the suggestion that the limited operation of the scheme up to the present time is due to stringency of the conditions. There are other factors that must be taken into account. In the first place, the existing nets and gear have proved sufficient to enable the catch for the period since 1st April to be increased from 583,000 crans in 1923 to 690,000 crans in 1924, the corresponding figures for the whole year being 687,000 crans in 1923 and 931,000 craws in 1924. I cannot at present give the comparative values, but the values this year are greatly in excess of those realised in 1923 and the fishing has been much more remunerative to the fishermen. In the second place, it appears to me that the importance of bringing in £150,000 of new capital into the Scottish herring fishing industry is being much under-valued by the hon. Members. In the third place, may I say that I believe that this constant campaign for modification of the existing conditions is also having its effect in retarding the operation of the scheme?
    Mr. STUART: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman considered it necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for £150,000?
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that money is being advanced to other sections of the community at a much lower rate of interest than 5 per cent.? Why should the fishermen be asked to pay 5 per cent. when money is being advanced to others at 3½ per cent.? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that, so far as this scheme is concerned, the fishermen who most needed the help have not been able to get it under the conditions of the scheme? Will the right hon. Gentleman modify the scheme?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that this is introducing £150,000 of new

    1877
    capital into the industry? Is he not aware that this loan is not taken advantage of because of the stringency of the conditions attached to it?
    Mr. STUART: May I have an answer to my question?

    CLYDEBANK (NON-PAYMENT OF RENT).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOURasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his negotiations with a view to securing a settlement of the difficulties in Clydebank have been continued; and whether any progress has been made?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am still in negotiation, and am not in a position to add to my reply to the right hon. and gallant Member on the 17th July.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Is there any prospect at all of any progress being made; and will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that if no progress is made the local authorities will be put into a serious position with regard to assessment for rating? Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any prospect to them?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this morning's Scottish papers there appears the announcement that to-day evictions are being asked for against tenants in arrears in Clydebank, and whether this position will not give rise to great trouble in that district and cause an extra burden to be thrown on the local authorities? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking in this matter?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I had not heard of the information which has just been conveyed by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). In reply to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour), while negotiations are in progress there is always hope of settlement.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that an answer of that character will be sufficient for a local authority which will be compelled, if there is no payment and if the rates are owing, to assess at a much higher rate the remaining part of the community in the district?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The local authority referred to by my right hon. and gallant
    1878
    Friend is aware that I have been doing all that it is possible for man to do to effect a settlement in this matter.
    Mr. HOPE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has any other impersonated difficulties behind him which he would like to settle, but cannot?

    SEED-TESTING STATION.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, seeing that the losses incurred on the seed-testing station amounted to £5,910 on the 31st March, 1923, he will say whether any further loss was made on the seed-testing station during the year ended 31st March, 1924; and if he has any hope of this institution being placed on a self-supporting footing?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The accounts for this station for the year 1923–24 will not be completed for some time yet, but the Board's estimate for the year in question contained provision for meeting an excess of expenditure over receipts for this service. In view of the scientific nature of the work and its great value to the development of agriculture it can hardly be expected, nor, so far as I am aware, is it the experience of other countries where a similar policy is in operation, that it can be placed on a self-supporting footing.
    Mr. HANNON: Is this intended as an experimental station, or is it to be conducted on a business basis?
    Sir F. WISE: How many farmers use this seed-testing station?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put on the Paper.

    SMALL-HOLDING COLONIES.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary for Scotland the aggregate losses upon the small-holding colonies in Scotland in respect of estate management and farm management, respectively, as on the 31st March, 1924; and whether, seeing that the total losses under each of these heads were £150,419 and £78,200, respectively, on 31st March, 1923, he proposes to take any measures to put these schemes on a self-supporting basis?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The accounts relating to the period ended 31st March, 1923, have recently been published, and as the corresponding accounts for the following

    1879
    year will not be completed until towards the end of the current financial year I cannot give the aggregate figures desired by the hon. Member at present. With regard to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that Parliament has fully recognised the importance and value of land settlement to the country, especially in relation to its responsibility to the ex-service men, and that this national policy must inevitably cost money. Everything practicable, however, is being done to minimise the loss.
    Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to continue this scheme indefinitely without regard to the cost to the country as evidenced by the figures set out in my question?
    Mr. ADAMSON: This is a policy which has been settled by this House.

    HOUSING SUBSIDY (RURAL AREAS).
    Mr. FALCONERasked the Secretary for Scotland the rural areas in Scotland which will be entitled to the subsidy of £12 10s. under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill as amended on Report?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of rural areas in Scotland which will be eligible for the increased subsidy of £12 10s. under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, as amended.
    Following is the list:

    LIST OF PARISHES IN SCOTLAND IN WHICH THE LANDWARD AREA WILL BE ENTITLED TO THE SUBSIDY OF £12 10s. UNDER THE HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)BILL.
    (1) Scotland, excluding Highlands and Islands.
    Aberdeen County:

    All parishes except—

    * Aberdeen.

    Aboyne.

    Crathie and Braemar.

    Glenmuick.

    Newhills.

    Peterculter.

    * Parish wholly burghal.

    Ayr County:

    All parishes except—

    Auchinleck.

    Beith.

    Dalmellington.

    Dalry.

    Dreghorn.

    Irvine.

    Kilbirnie.

    Kilmaurs.

    Largs.

    Muirkirk.

    Riccarton.

    Stevenston.

    Banff County:

    All parishes.

    Berwick County:

    All parishes.

    Bute County:

    All parishes except—

    Kilbride.

    * Rothesay.

    Clackmannan County:

    All parishes except—

    Alloa.

    Alva.

    Dumbarton, County:

    All parishes except—

    Arrochar.

    Bonhill.

    Cardross.

    Kilpatrick, New.

    Kilpatrick, Old.

    Kirkintilloch.

    Roseneath.

    Row.

    Dumfries County:

    All parishes except—

    Dornock.

    Gretna.

    Kirkconnel.

    East Lothian County:

    All parishes except—

    Ormiston.

    Prestonpans.

    Fife County:

    All parishes except—

    Aberdour.

    * Anstruther Easter.

    Auchterderran.

    Auchtertool.

    * Parish wholly burghal.

    Fife County—cont.

    All parishes except—

    Ballingry.

    Beath.

    Burntisland.

    Culross.

    Dunfermline.

    Inverkeithing.

    Leslie.

    Markinch.

    St. Monans.

    Torryburn.

    Tulliallan.

    Wemyss.

    Forfar County:

    All parishes except—

    Lochlee.

    Montrose.

    Kincardine County:

    All parishes except—

    Bervie.

    Kinross County:

    All parishes.

    Kirkcudbright County:

    All parishes.

    Lanark County:

    All parishes except—

    Blantyre.

    Bothwell.

    Cadder.

    Cambuslang.

    Cambusnethan.

    Carluke.

    Dalserf.

    Dalziel.

    Glasgow.

    * Govan.

    Hamilton.

    Monkland, New.

    Monkland, Old.

    Rutherglen.

    Shotts.

    Stonehouse.

    Midlothian County:

    All parishes except—

    Calder, Mid.

    Calder, West.

    Carrington.

    Cockpen.

    * Edinburgh.

    Glencorse.

    Inveresk.

    Lasswade.

    Newbattle.

    Penicuik.

    Temple.

    * Parish wholly burghal.

    Moray County:

    All parishes.

    Nairn County:

    All parishes.

    Peebles County:

    All parishes except—

    Kirkurd.

    Tweedsmuir.

    Perth County:

    All parishes except—

    Aberfoyle.

    Arngask.

    Glendevon.

    Killin.

    Renfrew County:

    All parishes except—

    Cathcart.

    Eastwood.

    Greenock.

    Inchinnan.

    Inverkip.

    Kilbarchan.

    Kilmacolm.

    Neilston.

    Paisley.

    Renfrew.

    Roxburgh County:

    All parishes.

    Selkirk County:

    All parishes.

    Stirling County:

    All parishes except—

    Buchanan.

    Denny.

    Falkirk.

    Grangemouth.

    Killearn.

    Kilsyth.

    Larbert.

    Muiravonside.

    St. Ninians.

    Stirling.

    Strathblane.

    West Lothian County:

    All parishes except—

    Abercorn.

    Bathgate.

    Bo'ness.

    Dalmeny.

    Ecclesmachen.

    Kirkliston.

    Livingston.

    Torphichen.

    Uphall.

    Whitburn.

    Wigtown County:

    All parishes except—

    * Stranraer.

    (2) Highlands and Islands.
    All parishes in the following counties:

    Argyll.

    Caithness.

    Inverness.

    Orkney.

    Ross and Cromarty.

    Sutherland.

    Zetland.

    All parishes in the Highland District of the County of Perth.

    * Parish wholly burghal.

    COKE (SALE).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to complaints that coke is being sold in unsatisfactory condition, and the suggestion that all coke should be sold by weight and that it should be made an offence to water coke with a view to increasing its weight fraudulently; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. WEBB: I have received from the London County Council a suggestion to the effect mentioned by the hon. Member, and the matter is being considered. Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the suggestion.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how coke is to be cooled unless by the use of water?

  TRANSPORT.

    THIRD-CLASS ROADS.
    Mr. BLACKasked the Minister of Transport whether he can now promise any Government grants to rural district councils for the improvement and maintenance of their ordinary third-class roads, seeing that these roads are now largely used for motor-car traffic and that otherwise they cannot be kept in a satisfactory condition?
    Mr. GOSLING: As I stated on the 17th June, in reply to a question by the right hon. and gallant Member for the New
    1884
    Forest and Christchurch Division (Colonel Ashley), a further sum of £1,000,000 has been allocated towards the improvement of important roads in rural areas. This is additional to the sum of £2,750,000 already allocated to this purpose during the past 18 months.
    Mr. BLACK: Is the Minister aware that the ordinary rural roads are deteriorating very seriously, and that it is impossible for the rural areas to carry out repairs and maintain them without further grants?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly the question on the Paper.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will not recommend the grant of any further money to the Leicestershire County Council until they put their roads in order?

    WORKMEN'S FARES.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Minister of Transport when the decision of the Railway Rates Tribunal will be given relative to charges for conveyance of workmen?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am not in a position to add to the answer which I gave on the 15th July to a somewhat similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Minister take any steps to have this question settled. Is he aware of the burden imposed on workmen by these excessive fares, and that the kind of reply which he has given does not satisfy those concerned.

    SPRINGHEAD LOCOMOTIVE WORKS, HULL.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has been able to do anything towards preventing or delaying the threatened closing down of the Springhead Locomotive Works at Hull, with the distress and unemployment that will be caused by such action; and, if so with what result?
    Mr. GOSLING: As I explained to the hon. and gallant Member on the 24th June, the railway company propose to close down the Springhead Locomotive Works at Hull in order to enable them to concentrate at their Darlington works the locomotive work in the company's

    1885
    north-eastern area. I am not prepared to oppose these proposals, but I have called the company's attention to certain aspects of the case put before me at a deputation introduced by the hon. and gallant Member. The company have assured me that, while in the interests of economy they feel obliged to close the Springhead Works, every consideration is being given to individual cases of hardship which are brought to their notice, and I shall be glad to put before them any individual case of which the hon. Member informs me.

    OMNIBUS TOP-DECK COVERS.
    Mr. HUGHESasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the congestion and delay on the underground railways when heavy rainstorms make it impracticable for the tops of omnibuses to be used by passengers; and whether, in view of the great inconvenience caused thereby, he is now able to make a statement with regard to the Report that has been prepared by the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles, with a view to the adoption of some form of top-deck covers for passenger-carrying motor vehicles, such as omnibuses?
    Mr. GOSLING: The Committee to which the hon. Member refers have not made any report to me upon the subject of top-deck covers for omnibuses. The designing of satisfactory and suitable top-deck covers for these vehicles presents many difficulties and I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. HUGHES: Will the Minister give permission for some form of top-deck cover approved by him to be tried by way of experiment on, say, a dozen omnibuses?
    Mr. GOSLING: The matter is still being looked into.

    LEVEL CROSSINGS (MAIN ROADS).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether he has taken any steps to inquire into the possibility of doing away with level-crossings across our main arterial roads and substituting bridges for them; and whether he intends to do anything in the matter, in view of the employment which would be forthcoming for skilled and unskilled labour if this be done?
    Mr. GOSLING: Yes, I have been inquiring into this, and as part of the general scheme now under consideration for the improvement of some of the principal trunk roads of the country, we are proposing to get rid of certain level crossings. In addition to this, as I have already explained to the Noble Lord, I am always ready to consider favourably applications from highway authorities for assistance to any practical proposals of a similar nature on important roads.

    ROAD SURFACES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether he has taken or intends to take any steps to inquire into the slippery nature of the new road surfaces now being laid on the main arterial roads of the country, whereby many serious accidents have been caused?
    Mr. GOSLING: Complaints as to the slippery nature of certain road surfaces are being carefully investigated, and continuous attention is being bestowed on the whole problem of combining smoothness of surface with adequate grip for tyres. But, as the Noble Lord is aware, I have a Bill awaiting Second Reading which will enable me to make full experiments, and he can perhaps assist me with his great influence.
    Captain BRASS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these extra-slippery roads cost 22s. per square yard, whereas the ordinary concrete roads cost only 12s. per square yard?
    Lieut. - Colonel FREMANTLE: Are these experiments being undertaken in connection with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, with a view to the roads being made more passable for horses?

    PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLES (POLICE INSPECTION.
    Mr. COMPTONasked the Home Secretary if he is prepared to take action to ensure that chars-a-bane, passenger-carrying lorries, etc., shall be subjected to similar police inspection as Metropolitan stage carriages and vehicles plying for public hire are at present subjected?
    Mr. DAVIES: In so far as these vehicles are required by statute to be licensed by the Commissioner of Police

    1887
    of the Metropolis, they are subject to the same police inspection as other licensed stage carriages in the Metropolitan police district.

  POST OFFICE.

    OVERSEAS SERVICES (PENZANCE-LONDON).
    Major Sir CLIVE MORRISON-BELLasked the Postmaster-General how many new land lines have been laid through the West Country in the last year to carry increasing overseas telegraphic business from Penzance to London?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Vernon Hartshorn): No new land lines have been constructed for the purpose in question. The existing plant is sufficient to meet the present needs of the overseas services via Penzance.

    PACIFIC CABLE.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that his predecessor promised on 17th April, 1923, to convey a representation to the Pacific Cable Board as to the desirability of linking our Pacific cable with the American cables at Honolulu; whether he can state what reply was made; and whether the Pacific Cable Board are doing anything towards the duplication of the cable north of Fiji?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The matter was brought to the notice of the Pacific Cable Board. I understand that the Board prefer to follow the present route, and are now considering whether the duplication north of Fiji shall be by cable or by wireless.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC (UNITED STATES).
    Mr. BLACKasked the Prime Minister whether, in response to the friendly representations of the United States Government, he proposes to take steps to put a stop to the sending from the United Kingdom of liquors which ultimately reach, although they are prohibited from sale in, the United States?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): The possibility of taking measures to put a stop to the sending from the United Kingdom of liquors which ultimately reach
    1888
    the United States is still under consideration, the difficulty being to frame measures which will not hamper legitimate trade.
    Sir A. BENN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether America has really asked us to assist them in enforcing the law, and whether it is not the law of the United States that any citizen of the United States can send out of America munitions of war even to belligerents in war time?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I must have notice of that question.

  AGRICULTURE.

    OUSE DRAINAGE BOARD.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the Ouse Drainage Board have issued demand notes for the second Ouse drainage rate for the period July, 1922, to March, 1924; and will he state the amount collected and the amount outstanding on the first drainage rate for the period from October, 1920, to July, 1922?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Buxton): I believe the position is as stated in the first part of the question. As to the second part, I am endeavouring to ascertain the desired particulars from the Ouse Board, and will send them to the hon. Member.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the Report on the Ouse Drainage Act is awaited with consider able anxiety; and can he now state when he proposes to make it public?
    Mr. BUXTON: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary stated in reply to the hon. Member fm. Huntingdon (Mr. Costello) on the 15th instant, reports of such inquiries are confidential and not for publication.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will estimate for the years 1913 and 1923, respectively, the acreage of arable land and the acreage under grass in Great Britain, and the numbers, respectively, of farmers and farm labourers employed in the industry in each of these years?
    Mr. BUXTON: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The area of arable land in Great Britain in 1913 on holdings of over one acre was 14,360,000 acres, and of permanent grass 17,567,000 acres; the figures for 1923 were 14,479,000 acres and 16,189,000 acres respectively. The number of holdings was 513,000 in 1913 and 488,000 in 1923, and while in a number of cases two or more holdings were in the same occupation, the number of holdings may be taken as a close approximation to the number of occupiers. The number of workers, according to the returns furnished by the occupiers, employed on the 4th June, 1913, was 628,000 regular workers, and 112,000 casual workers; the figures for 1923 being 725,000 and 169,000 respectively. I should explain that the figures of the number of workers are not quite comparable for these two years. In 1913 the figures do not include members of the occupier's family; those for 1923 do not include the occupier and his wife, but include any other members of the family working on the holding.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Minister of Agriculture how many farmers in Great Britain are owner-occupiers of the whole of their farms; and how ninny are exclusively tenants?
    Mr. BUXTON: The total number of holdings of over one acre in extent in Great Britain in 1923, owned or mainly owned by the occupiers was 96,275, and the number rented or mainly rented was 391,532.

    GRETNA (SALE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the total money received from the sale of property at Gretna; and whether any of the works plant has been sold?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): The total of the sales resulting from the auction last week is £107,716. The only works plant sold was the ether factory.
    Mr. HARDIE: Was not a promise given that a high reserve price would be
    1890
    put upon this property with a view to its being used for Government purposes, and may we know what that price was, and whether that price was stated to the auctioneer?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It is quite true that a reserve price was put upon this factory, as upon all other property which was put up for auction. The ether factory was not sold at the auction because the reserve price was not reached, but it was disposed of later for a sum which was only £250 below the reserve price. The reserve price was £20,000, and it was sold at £19,750.
    Mr. HARDIE: May I ask who it was that fixed the reserve price at that low sum, on a plant costing £250,000?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I think the fact that nobody was prepared to buy for the purpose of carrying it on as a going concern showed that the reserve price was a fairly reasonable figure.
    Mr. HANNON: What percentage does the amount of property sold bear to the total estimated value of the property?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am quite sure my hon. Friend, with his wide and intimate knowledge of business, cannot expect me to answer an inquiry like that by question and answer. It would require a great deal of investigation.
    Mr. HANNON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman's colleague in the Treasury state yesterday, in reply to a supplementary question of mine, that the value of the property sold was a small percentage of the total estimated value of the property?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: If that is what the hon. Gentleman means, certainly. It is public knowledge that the Gretna factory cost an enormous sum of money, and it is quite impossible to realise anything like its original cost. But the hon. Member and other hon. Members should recognise that the factory was erected during war time and for war purposes, and that therefore the question as to cost was a very minor consideration at that time. I think I may add that, in point of fact, with the exception of the ether factory, everything that we get from the sale of property at Gretna is, in a sense, clear profit, because the entire cost of the equipment and buildings was saved by the reduced cost of munitions.
    Mr. HARDIE: May I ask whether the Government in charge made every investigation as to the possibilities of the plant, and why did they not take the report which was given to them, and have it investigated, either by those in the Cabinet who understood, or by permanent officials who are supposed to understand?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I have not seen any such report as that to which my hon. Friend refers, but I may say that this question of Gretna has received not only my own personal attention, but the attention of other Departments of the Government during the last few months, and everything possible has been done to make the best of this sale. I think the results of the auction are very illuminating. Had there been possibilities for private enterprise, I think there would have been a great deal more competition than there was at the sale.
    Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that private enterprise is playing the game?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As a matter of fact, the only works sold were the ether factory. All the other factories are still on our hands.

    ART TREASURES (SALE TO FOREIGNERS).
    Captain EDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the sale to foreign nationals, and consequent loss to this country, of certain of our national art treasures; and whether he will consider the possibility of imposing an export duty to check the expansion of this practice?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not unaware of the circumstance to which the hon. and gallant Member calls attention. The remedy that he suggests is one which I understand has already been considered and rejected on several occasions.
    Captain EDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that now almost every other country which possesses art treasures has regulations in force much more stringent than those suggested in the question?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am quite sure that everybody has sympathy with the object which the hon. and gallant Member has
    1892
    in view, but this matter has been considered times without number, and the possibility of working an export duty is very remote indeed. The hon. and gallant Member will realise how very easy it is to evade an export tax of this kind, and what irritating restrictions would be involved. I think, if there were such an export duty, every article of export would have to be very carefully examined by the Customs authorities.

    NEWHAVEN (CUSTOMS EXAMINATION).
    Captain BRASSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the inconvenience and delay caused to passengers travelling from Paris to London by the Dieppe-Newhaven route through the London train being held up unnecessarily long at Newhaven by the action of the Customs officials of that port forcing each passenger to open every single package he or she may possess, these packages being frequently closed again without examination; and, in view of this fact, whether he can see his way to issue instructions for a more efficient and less prolonged examination of passengers' luggage take place at this port, so that travellers may have their luggage examined there without undue delay, as is the practice at the other cross-Channel ports of Dover, Folkestone and Southampton?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am informed that the Customs procedure at Newhaven is the same as at the other ports mentioned in the question. It is not the case at Newhaven or elsewhere that passengers generally are required to open all their packages for examination.
    Captain BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to find out how often the train from Newhaven to London is late when the boat arrives punctually at Newhaven?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I anticipated some such question as that, and I am informed that no complaint at all has been made. It is quite true, I understand, that occasionally all packages of passengers are searched, but only when they have reason to suspect that there has been smuggling.

  INCOME TAX.

    FORMS (DISTRIBUTION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the great number of Income Tax forms distributed to persons who are ineligible to pay Income Tax; and whether anything can be done to prevent this unnecessary distribution, especially where the wages of people are well known from the returns sent in by the employers?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I think that the hon. and gallant Member is under some misapprehension in this matter. The issue of Income Tax forms of return is primarily governed by the law, but such administrative modifications as are practicable under the existing machinery of the Income Tax have been made in order to secure that the number of forms annually issued is reduced to the minimum necessary in the interests of the Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that individual incomes vary from year to year, and that liability to tax does not depend solely on earnings, but on total income from all sources.

    LANDOWNERS (ADDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS).
    Major STEELasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the purpose of the Government's Amendment of Rule 8 of No. V Rules in Schedule A is to entitle landowners to recover Income Tax on expenditure incurred in making additions and improvements where such additions and improvements are carried out in order that existing farmhouses, farm buildings and cottages may comply with the requirements laid down for new buildings by statutory provisions or local regulations and by-laws?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the discussion which took place during the Report stage of the Finance Bill on the Amendment of Rule 8 of No. V in Schedule A, which is now embodied in Clause 25 of the Bill, he will see that the Clause does not go so far as is suggested. I would add, however, that in practice it is not proposed normally to raise objection to the inclusion in a claim under Rule 8 of expenditure incurred by a landowner on additions or improvements to farmhouses, farm build-
    1894
    ing or cottages in anticipation of a notice under statutory provisions or regulations.
    Major STEEL: Will instructions be issued to all the collectors of taxes to interpret this new Clause in the meaning of the question as I have put it down?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have no doubt that the terms of the proposals which we embodied in the Finance Bill will be brought to the notice of the local inspectors, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that in administrative practice the case which he has in mind will be completely covered.

    SIR JOHN SOANE MUSEUM.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will request the trustees of the Sir John Soane Museum, in Lincoln's Inn Fields, to allow a suitable committee from the Board of Education, or the Victoria and Albert Museum, to confer with them with a view to making the Soane Museum more accessible to the public in certain months of the year, and to re-arranging the exhibits so that they can be more easily seen and studied by visitors?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the trustees; but as I understand that the trustees will not be meeting again for several months, it may be some time before they are able to give the matter consideration.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I beg to give notice that on a suitable occasion I shall draw attention to the administration of this Museum.

    RETIRED NAVAL OFFICERS (WAR SERVICE).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement on the findings of the inquiry recently held in the matter of the pensions of those retired naval officers who served during the War?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The Report is being issued as a Command Paper.
    Sir B. FALLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us a kind of rough state ment?
    Mr. AMMON: The information will be given in the form of a Command Paper. The Report is not unanimous. The majority take up the position that on recall to service officers' pensions should cease. There is a Minority Report in favour of some other suggestions.
    Viscount CURZON: Will a summary of the evidence be issued with the Report?
    Mr. AMMON: No, I think not.

  EDUCATION.

    JUVENILE ASSOCIATIONS.
    Mr. E. SIMONasked the President of the Board of Education what local juvenile associations will be eligible for the proposed grant of £20,000; to what purpose the money is to be devoted; whether it is to be allocated by local education authorities; and under what conditions it will be granted?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I am afraid I am not yet in a position to make any detailed announcement with regard to the expenditure of the proposed grant of £20,000, but I hope to be able to issue draft, Regulations at an early date. In settling the conditions of the grant, I shall keep particularly in view the promotion of social and physical training of young persons between the ages of 14 and 16.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
    Mr. SIMONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of his statement that, he would like to see 40 per cent. of free places in secondary schools, he will ensure that in grant-aided schools the full cost of the free places shall be paid half by the rates and half by the taxes?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The cost of providing free places in grant-aided schools provided by local education authorities is already at present divided between rates and taxes equally. The incidence of the cost of providing them in other grant-aided schools not provided by local education authorities depends upon
    1896
    various factors. As have already announced in this House, I intend to review the existing arrangements for the award of free places, and the point which I think the hon. Member has in view will not be overlooked.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any action with a view to reducing the extraordinary fees that some local authorities are charging in the secondary schools?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better put that questkon on the Paper.

    SLAVE TRADING.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has despatched any remonstrance to an Arabian Government upon the practice of slave trading and/or slave owning; and whether it is proposed to publish any such despatches or instructions?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part I cannot say until the correspondence has been completed.

    SEXUAL OFFENCES (COMMITTEE).
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to give the names of the members of the Departmental Committee who will inquire into the subject of assault on young girls, the terms of reference and any other information relating to the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): My right hon. Friend has now appointed a Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir Ryland Adkins, K.C., with the following terms of reference: "To collect information and to take evidence as to the prevalence of sexual offences against young persons, and to report upon the subject, indicating any direction in which in their opinion the law or its administration might be improved."
    The other members are Mr. H. W. Disney, Miss E. H. Kelly, C.B.E., J.P., Miss

    1897
    Clara Martineau, J.P., Dr. A. H. Norris, M.C., Mr. R. J. Parr, O.B.E., Mrs. Rackham, J.P. and Sir Guy Stephenson, C.B. The Secretary is Miss J. I. Wall, of the Home Office.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the open letter addressed by the Communist party in Great Britain to soldiers and sailors containing incitements' of a seditious and treasonable character; and if he will state what action is proposed to be taken as regards those responsible for the publication of the letter?
    Mr. DAVIES: Yes, Sir, and my right hon. Friend is considering whether any action is called for.
    Sir F. HALL: If I put a question down next week, will the hon. Gentleman be able to answer it? I beg to give notice that I will put a question down this day week.

    DOMINION AND INDIAN HIGH COMMISSIONERS (PRECEDENCE).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have been come to with regard to the precedence of the High Commissioners of the Dominions and India?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for The COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): As the House is aware, among the matters discussed at the Imperial Conference, 1923, was the question of the precedence of the High Commissioners in London. In accordance with the undertaking then given the matter was examined arid suggestions were put forward, with His Majesty's approval, by the late Government for the consideration of the Dominion Prime Ministers and the Government of India. These proposals have proved generally acceptable, and His Majesty has now been pleased to direct that the High Commissioners for Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland and India should be given pre
    1898
    cedence on ceremonial occasions, according to the following principles:

    (a) When British or Dominion Ministers being at the time members of their respective Cabinets, are present, the High Commissioners should take precedence immediately after them; this is subject to the qualification that the High Commissioner should not on any occasion be given a higher place than that accorded by the Table of Precedence to Secretaries of State.

    (b) When no members of the British or Dominion Cabinets are present, the High Commissioners should take precedence immediately after that accorded by the Table of Precedence to Secretaries of State.

    ESTIMATES.
    Third Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Legitimacy Bill,
Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill,
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
Halifax Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to,
Southend Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to postpone the coming into operation of the Law of Property Act, 1922, until the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-six." [Law of Property Act (Postponement) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to measuring instruments." [Weights and Measures (Measuring Instruments) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Act, 1918." [Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [18th ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

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

        MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.
        Motion made, and question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £2,919,000, 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 sundry Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid."—[Note: £2,800,000 has been voted on account.]
        Mr. OBMSBY-GORE: The object of asking that this Vote should be taken this afternoon was to enable the Government to make some statement regarding the situation in Iraq in case they wished, before Parliament meets in the autumn, to ratify the Treaty that has now been accepted by the Constituent Assembly in Iraq. It will be remembered that Mr. Churchill, when Secretary of State for the Colonies under the Coalition Government, gave an undertaking that, before the Treaty was finally ratified by the Government, an opportunity should be afforded, to Parliament to review the situation. Again, last year, when the party on these benches were responsible for the Government we gave an undertaking that the matter should not be disposed of, first, until the Constituent Assembly at Bagdad had had a say as to the Treaty and the new Protocol—often called the Subsidiary Agreements—which were initiated when we first came into office. And this Government has also given a pledge that it will not ratify the Treaty till Parliament has been given an opportunity of discussing it—both the Treaty and the Protocol—thereby carrying out identically the same pledge as given by the two previous Governments.
        Since we last debated this matter there have been two outstanding facts. The first was the acceptance by the Con-
        1920
        stituent Assembly in Iraq of the Treaty and the Protocol. Secondly there was the failure of the British representative to come to any direct settlement with the Turkish Government in regard to the Northern frontier of the Arab State of Iraq. I wish first to ascertain from the Minister in charge what is the present. position in regard to the Mosul negotiations, that is to say, if the Turks agree to abide by the reference to the League of Nations under the Treaty of Lausanne, and if the League of Nations proceed, as I understand they will proceed, to deal forthwith with this disputed Northern frontier, has the Turkish Government given any indication as to whether it will agree to whatever determination the League of Nations may come? That is, after all, a vital question, far exceeding any other in importance with regard to the future of this territory. If the State of Iraq felt that its case for the inclusion of the City of Mosul and the region of the Tigris between Mosul and Bagdad was not going to be given a fair chance, but that Turkey was going to be enabled to re-enter the lower Euphrates Valley then good-bye to any hopes of a really separate independent political and economic entity in Mesopotamia.
        The whole region, from the Persian Gulf up to and including Mosul, is absolutely unanimous on that point, and it is not surprising, because it is vitally essential to the security and economic development of Iraq. The one fear there has been in the mind of the population has been lest we, in our anxiety to liquidate the responsibilities which we undertook after the War to the people whom we liberated from Turkish rule under great pressure, financial or otherwise, should not see them through the difficult diplomatic negotiations which are necessary to secure the legitimate ethnical and economic frontiers or this country. That is the first question I must address to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know what the exact position of the frontier negotiations, because almost everything hangs on that.
        My second question is, what has been happening in the Constituent Assembly in recent months? On the whole, the news that has been received by the Press from the Middle East during the past six months has been extremely scanty, which means that it is good news. In the East the appearance of incidents and news in

        1921
        newspapers usually indicates that things are not going altogether smoothly. But we have observed within the last six months that there has been a remarkable absence of news and incidents of any kind from the Near and Middle East, and particularly from Iraq, which is, on the whole, a good sign. It is a good sign because it means that the country is settling down to handing over the administration to the Arab Government, and the general liquidation of our commitments has not produced, with very few exceptions, any difficult incidents or difficult conditions. When one knows anything of that country, one realises what a difficult, task it is. The Government of Iraq was always a pretty hard job for the Turks, but virtually the Turks never attempted to make effective any settled Government in the more disturbed areas, and each tribe was more or less a law unto itself. Raids were constant, and the Government practically consisted of military garrisons in the principal towns, and there was some order in the principal market centres, and this was coupled with the Turkish tax gatherer who got what he could, and usually got more than he was entitled to get.
        Mr. KIRKWOOD: That holds good here.
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is certainly true. Iraq in the past has been governed on the basis of a Constituent Assembly endeavouring to fashion for itself a new constitution. I understand that in the coming few weeks that Constituent Assembly comes to an end and will be wound up, and in its place there will be a regular, newly drafted constitution to succeed it. We have no information as to the character of the new constitution. I understand that at this very moment the Constituent. Assembly is engaged on the new electoral law, and I think we ought to know what, in the opinion of the Colonial Secretary, is likely to be the character of the new constitution, which is to be the governing authority in the future in Iraq.
        4.0 P.M.
        My third question deals with the international position which we have now reached—I mean not so much as regards the boundary, but the status of Iraq in the world as a whole. On paper, as far as the European Powers are concerned and the world at large, Iraq is technically
        1922
        mandated territory. Technically the three Turkish vilayets—Mosul, Bagdad, and Basra—are mandated territory, to be administered under a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations. It has been perfectly clear for some time past that that is never going to be the status of Iraq, and the League was informed by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) when he represented this country on the Council of the League that although Great Britain had been given the mandate under the San Remo Treaty in the spring of 1920, we did not intend to undertake that obligation, but that Iraq was to be governed in an entirely different manner. The first step we informed the League we proposed to take, having established an Arab kingdom in that country, was to regulate our relations with that State which we were protecting pro tem by means of a treaty. The question now arises, is the Treaty in such a form that it is ready for presentation to the League of Nations, and are they going to be invited to recognise, once and for all, that this territory is not to have the status of a mandated territory, but is to become at the earliest possible date a completely independent self-governing State, only modified by the terms of a special treaty of alliance between His Britannic Majesty and this independent State? It is very important that that should be cleared up, not only because of the correspondence which passed between our Government and the American Government on this matter, but also from the point of view of the local inhabitants in the country. The, conception of "mandates" and the very word and title "mandate" became very obnoxious to the people of the country. It acquired, in the course of use, a connotation very similar to the connotation of the word Himayat, the Arabic word for "protectorate," which seemed to he the one thing which the people of Egypt wanted to get rid of; and I am quite sure that there will not be a satisfactory local feeling until the Arab State of Iraq arid its position in the world as a whole has been finally determined by the Council of the League. Obviously, having been designated as a mandated territory, until that status is definitely at an end and the Council of the League have definitely recognised the new State that is proposed;

        1923
        there will be some doubt and uncertainty in their minds, and it is vitally important that that uncertainty should be cleared up.
        The next question which I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is what has been done and what is being done during the period that we are responsible for advice and for finding technical officers and assistants and during the time that we are in process of handing over from what was the British military regime to the new Arab Government towards the economic development of the country. One hears extremely little as to what has been done. One knows that the military expenditure was perfectly gigantic, and one does want to know whether foundations have been laid which will enable that country to pay its way, to defend itself, and to find the wherewithal to defend itself in the future. It seems to me that that is vital. I have all along taken the view that, given a satisfactory peace between Turkey and her neigh-bours, it will not be the ambition of Turkey to sweep down from the mountains in the North of Iraq to the plains of Iraq and once more conquer that country. It would be a great deal of trouble to the Turk to enter that Arab world, but, being a much more numerous and warlike Power, he could sweep down from the mountains and no doubt march to Basra, unless something stood in his way, and everything depends for the future security of the independent Arab State upon their being able to maintain some sort of local Arab army and being able to pay it. They cannot do that unless there is the potentiality of a considerably increased revenue, and one of the moral duties which lay upon us as the conquerors of that country, having driven out the Turks, was to give a chance to that which once was one of the richest countries of the world again to enter production after the devastation of something like five centuries. The whole of the irrigation system of the country of ancient days is known. Its potentialities are known, and the whole question is what has been done and what is being done, and by what means, to lay the foundations of that development without which the country cannot stand.
        In this connection of the future defence of Iraq by Iraq itself, there is one further
        1924
        question about which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something. In my view, the very best of the native troops in that country are drawn from a small community in the neighbourhood of Mosul, namely, the Assyrians. They are, if I may say so without reflection on the rest of the community, the stoutest fellows in the country. Their home is right upon the disputed frontier. They have stood loyally by Iraq and have loyally co-operated with Iraq, and they furnish at the present moment the major part of the personnel of the levies in that area. I have a very anxious feeling for the future of that small and most interesting community. They are different from the Arabs on the one hand and the Turks on the other hand in racial origin. They are Christians belonging to a small Church of their own. They have co-religionists in the South of India, but, otherwise, they are a Church to themselves. They are extremely fine people, and it behoves us, before we finally liquidate our responsibilities in Iraq, to do our best for them, and to endeavour to ensure, so far as we can, that no ill happens to them either from Turk or Arab, but that they are given a chance in their own little national enclave, as it were, to carry on their lives. I am perfectly certain, if they are given a chance, they will be one of the most stable elements in that part of the world, making for the defence of Iraq and for peace.
        Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: How many are there of these Assyrians?
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not know, because they are considerably scattered, but perhaps the hon. Member can tell us how many there are in the actual levies. I have not the recent figures. I have interviewed several of them here in London, and as a matter of fact they are in process of collecting in the area between Lake Urumiah and Mosul in the country that was always their home. My impression is that they are considerably more numerous than was at first thought. They get on very well with another lot of people who are their neighbours, and who are very distinguished, the Tezidis, and with the Tezidis and certain of the Kurdish tribes there they could form a fairly homogeneous community which could, I believe, survive. The real trouble, of course, is the nomadic tribes.

        1925
        The Kurdish nomadic tribes, especially -on the Persian frontier, are, above all, the most unsettled of those people, and there is no doubt that one of the difficulties of the situation all along has been the fear on the part of Turkey that, unless all these Kurdish tribes are included within the Turkish frontier, they N' ill become a centre of a Kurdish national movement which will be extremely inconvenient to Turkey. As a matter of fact, I do not share their fear. I believe that the great mass of the Kurdish population will remain loyal to Turkey and will be incorporated in Turkey, and that the Kurdish nomadic tribes in Persia and in Mesopotamia do not seek for any cohesion with their ethnical compatriots over the Turkish border, because the character of the Kurd is still based on the local tribe and local leader, and there is nothing like the national side as we have running through the Arab and Turkish world. That is a side bound up with this question of the Assyrians.
        I now pass to another question, namely, the form of this vote as you have put it from the Chair. I think it is very unsatisfactory that we should have in the Middle Eastern Estimate, for which the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary is responsible, very large sums for the Air Force, and certain sums for the Army, which, anyhow, would appear in the Air Estimates. It gives an absolutely false impression of our Air Estimates, and an equally false impression of what the temporary administration of Iraq is costing. I know when I took the matter up, just before the change of Governments, that it was stated that it was too late this year to change. The Estimates had been prepared, and we could not change. But I know that the Air Force and the War Office will go on fighting to get as much as possible of their expenditure put on the Colonial Office Vote. That is only natural. Really, the only thing that ought to be in this Vote is the excess cost of those air squadrons, which are part of our air establishment, anyhow, clue to the fact that they are now stationed in Iraq and not stationed here at home. It is a question whether there is any excess cost.
        It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, and undoubtedly the presence of such a very large proportion of the
        1926
        air defences of this country in Iraq during the last few years has been a tremendous asset to the Air Force. It has provided them, under climatic and other conditions, with an opportunity such as they never could have had in this country. They are in a climate where you can fly every day and all day, whereas here you cannot. They are living, more or less, under semi-active service conditions, with all that means with regard to discipline and control of men. I say all this because I do think that next year we ought to make quite sure that the Middle Eastern Services Vote is only for the Middle Eastern Services, and does not include several millions of money for squadrons of the Air Force, which we have to maintain anyhow, and which ought to be shown on the Air Estimates.
        In this connection, let me say that one should pay a very great tribute to the way in which the officers and men of the Air Force have taken over their duties in what you might call the first independent command in both Palestine and Mesopotamia, and particularly in Iraq. For the first time; the officer commanding the troops of the whole country is not a War Office man but an Air Force man. There is common agreement even in the Army itself that Sir John Salmond and the other officers have acquitted themselves in that task, the first of the kind the Air Force has undertaken, with very remarkable success. It was very largely the magnificent way in which the Army troops under Sir Berkeley Vincent co-operated with the Air Force which enabled the Air Force to discharge its role. From my experience of the Colonial Office last year, I would say that on all questions of policy and of administration referred to Sir John Salmond, the Air Officer commanding, we had the very best and most skilled advice, which was quite up to the very best standard of the General Staff officer of the Army or of the Navy. That is a great thing for the Air Force.
        Having made my complaint about. the form of this Estimate, my next object is to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us anything at all definite with regard to the probable Estimates for next year. Is there likely to be any further reduction in both the Air Force and the garrison of the country, and any reduction of any contribution, direct or

        1927
        indirect, that we have to make to the revenues of Iraq to make up the local budget? There has been a constant diminution during the last few years, and the point has come when one should ask how far the local levies, both the Arab Army and the levies, are financed out of local revenue and how far out of grants-in-aid from this country.
        The next point in that connection is to ascertain what has been the final settlement in regard to the railways. The railways were laid down by us as part of the military necessities of the War. They were conceived on strategic lines rather than on commercial lines. Since I first entered the field of Iraqian politics I have taken great interest in this matter, especially during my term at the Colonial Office. One of the greatest drains on the country was the enormous cost of maintaining these railways, owing to the gigantic Indian personnel which introduced into the country political complications of a very undesirable character. I believe that the Indians have now gone hack to India, and the personnel of the railways is almost entirely drawn from the natives of the country, which is a good thing economically. As I understand it, the railways have been definitely handed over to the Iraq Government, which has taken charge of them, and we have no further responsibility in connection with them. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether these railways are charged up in the general account against Iraq, whether they have become revenue-producing, and whether any revenue obtained from them will go to the general revenues of Iraq and into the ordinary Budget, or whether such revenue will be set aside as a special Sinking Fund to pay some interest on the capital value of the railways. That is as far as the railway position is concerned.
        There is the further question of the harbour and port of Basra. The port of Basra is really a magnificent port. I know there have been continual delays in disposing of certain portions of the port, and up to a year ago the Disposal Board had not succeeded in getting rid of the actual dock or in getting anything established there in regard to the future of the dock. As our policy is one of liquidation, it is important to know what
        1928
        final settlement has been reached in regard to the control of the harbour and ownership and utilisation of the docks.
        I would like further to know how the Treaty with Iraq has been accepted by the Constituent Assembly? What is the general attitude of the King and Government and the people to their British allies, and what further steps are now required to give full effect to the Protocol and subsidiary agreements connected with that Treaty The must important of them, from the point of view of this House, perhaps is the one which is to regulate the future status and services of such British officers as may continue in the service of the Iraq Government after our four years' mandate has come to an end. It is definitely understood that it is both the wish and the need of the Iraq Government that, after that period, and when our responsibility for the military or air protection of the country conies to an end, certain technical officers should remain behind for the purpose of development and for assisting the Iraq Government. It is absolutely essential, therefore, we should have a clear understanding as to the terms of service and the treatment which the British officers undertaking that service will receive. Many of them have been seconded from the Egyptian or Indian service. They have been allowed to take service under the Iraq Government, and the question of their pension rights and status is a very important matter which rightly deserves the watchfulness and protection of this House. I think I have covered most of the ground. I am quite sure that before the right hon. Gentleman and the Government advise ratification of the Treaty it will be agreed that Parliament should be informed what the intentions of the Government are. It has been admitted that it may be possible both to ratify the Treaty and to clear up the relations between Iraq and ourselves during this autumn. I hope before Parliament meets again it will have been found possible to do that, and I trust, too, that the right hon. Gentleman will take the necessary authority to do if forthwith. The great thing is to get things done in these countries. We have been drifting through a series of negotiations, and now we have arrived at the point when there is a chance that the thing may be put on a proper footing for the future, and this Government be

        1929
        enabled to exchange ratifications and to put the whole matter on a permanent international basis.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100.
        I will shortly explain my reason for so doing. I am rather surprised at the Opposition asking that this Vote should be taken to-day, especially in view of the speech we have just had, although on reflection I suppose it was rather difficult for the hon. Gentleman who had the great honour of representing the Colonial Office in this House to criticise his own policy, which the present Government are carrying out. The policy of the present Government is apparently the same as that of its predecessors. It is for that reason I propose to move the reduction of the Vote. Before we go any further, may I express the hope that this discussion in Supply is not going to take the place of a proper Debate on the Treaty, to give the House a chance of voting against its ratification. Most of the Treaties arising out of the War, including the Treaty of Lausanne, have been brought before this House in the form of Bills which have had to go through their various stages on which discussion was possible. That policy started with the Treaty of Versailles, for which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was responsible. After the present Government took office, the Tinder-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a very satisfactory pronouncement to the effect that in future all instruments, treaties and agreements would be laid before Parliament before ratification. I do not think it is implementing this satisfactory pledge to simply allow a discussion in Committee of Supply on a day chosen by the Opposition in order to support their own policy. Because the largest party in the House, through the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) has approved everything done by this Government, I do not think it should be accepted as a mandate, instruction or injunction to the Colonial Minister to advise ratification of this Treaty.
        I should like to know whether the present Government are entirely carrying out the policy of their predecessors in Iran. If they are not, what is the
        1930
        difference? if they are not following it out faithfully, may we be informed in what respect they are differing from it As far as I can tell, they are following out the self-same policy. The Estimates which my right hon. Friend has presented were, I believe, prepared partly under the direction of the hon. Member for Stafford. The action of the Air Force in preserving order in Iraq, which was very strongly criticised by many leading members of the Labour party when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power—the same methods of quelling disturbances or teaching lessons to turbulent chiefs in Iraq by minor air action are being pursued with the same vigour. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman apparently takes a very curious view, if I may be allowed to say so, as to the constitutional character of our proceedings in Bagdad. The Constituent Assembly showed itself somewhat hostile to this Treaty when the hon. Member for Stafford fathered it in this House. They, apparently, did not wish to ratify it, and when they had ratified it they added a very curious rider that it should be null and void if Mosul were not included within the borders of Iraq. I want to know what is the effect of that rider, and whether, if we ratify this Treaty, we are taking responsibility for that rider and all its implications.
        Apparently, if left to themselves, the Constituent Assembly would have refused to ratify the Treaty, and I venture to say that that was a Heaven-sent opportunity for us finally to get rid of this incubus of Mesopotamia and get out of the country once and for all. Instead of that, the Prime Minister sent a curious telegram, in which he, apparently, warned the Government of King Feisal of the terrible things that would happen if this Treaty were not ratified. We have not had a very clear description of what happened, but I should like, if I may, to quote the correspondent of the "Times" newspaper, who, writing from Bagdad, gave, in the issue of that paper of the 25th June, a very full account of what occurred. In the part of his communication which is relevant to what I am now going to say, he said:
        "It looked as though the old curse of internal quarrelling and want of cooperation was again going to wreck an Arab State. The public Session which followed was futile. At 1.30 p.m., General Jafar Pasha el Askari, the Prime Minister,

        1931
        Moved that the House adjourn till Wednesday, 'for political reasons.' It was at once made clear to the Iraqi Government that Great Britain required an answer by Tuesday, midnight, at latest; otherwise the Treaty would be considered rejected. An attempt was made to convene a meeting in the afternoon, but there was no quorum The situation looked desperate at sunset. As a final effort the President summoned all the members to attend at 10 p.m. Palace officials and police officers were to be seen going round to deputies' houses and taking them to the House. Seventy members assembled. Ten or fifteen would not venture out after dark"—
        Apparently the Whips' Office is not quite so efficient. in Bagdad as it might be.
        "A motion that was equivalent to rejection was defeated by 42 votes to 24, and the Resolution for ratification was then passed. Of the deputies who were absent a majority are known to favour the Treaty, but to have been afraid to vote publicly in accordance with their convictions. One cannot blame them. They are new to politics; and they knew the dangers they would incur from the terrorists."
        Of course, there has been a very disgraceful campaign of political terrorism in Bagdad, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas) has my complete sympathy in being faced with that difficulty. But that is not the point.
        The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I do not need sympathy.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman does not need sympathy. As he truly said in the House the other day, he is not a member of the Constituent Assembly of Bagdad. Three of the leading Deputies have already been murdered, and I daresay the right hon. Gentleman knows that they were murdered because they were known to be pro-Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman does not need sympathy, but I venture to say that they need his sympathy. My information is that the three Deputies who were murdered were known to be pro-Treaty, and a reign of terror has been initiated in Bagdad by pan-Arab extremists. These are very terrible things, but I am asking for further information, and if the "Times" correspondent is wrong, perhaps we shall have the right hon. Gentleman's denial.
        I asked a question a fortnight ago of my right hon. Friend on this very matter. I wanted to know how many Deputies there were in the Iraq Constituent
        1932
        Assembly, and the reply was that there were 110, that 69 were present when the vote on the Treaty was taken, and that 36 voted for acceptance, while nine abstained from voting. That very nearly corresponds with the figures given by the "Times" correspondent. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that the Assembly attached a rider in the following terms to its acceptance of the Treaty:
        "This Treaty and its subsidiary agreements shall become null and void if the British Government fail to safeguard the rights of Iraq in the Mosul Vilayet in their entirety."
        That was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. I then asked him why so few deputies were present. during a discussion of this important matter, and the right hon. Gentleman replied, "I was not there." I really think that that is treating the matter rather lightly. We are asked to ratify this Treaty, or, at least, I hope we are going to be asked to ratify it. The right hon. Gentleman is, apparently, going to invite the House to ratify the Treaty, and Treaty, and yet a clear minority of the Constituent Assembly were present, and only a still smaller minority voted for its ratification. I then asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was seized of the facts, and his reply was that he was seized of the facts, and that it was impossible to give an explanation. I dare say, in answer to a question, it is impossible to give an explanation but I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation now. Are we to understand that the ratification of the Treaty by the Constituent Assembly at Bagdad was brought about by scouring the streets of Bagdad in the middle of the night by police officers and paeace officials, and that then an actual minority was brought into the Assembly to ratify the Treaty, and a still smaller minority voted for it? In these circumstances, are we to commit this country to the support of King Feisal's Government in Iraq for, as I understand, 20 years, with all the commitments—
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know; I will deal with that in a moment -or until that Government has applied for admission, and been accepted into the League of Nations?
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not 20 years.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: if the hon. Member will forgive me. While I understand that the intention of the present Government is that it shall be for four years at the outside, yet I venture to say that if at the end of four years there are dangers threatening our forces in Iraq—if there are external dangers, either from the Idrissi or from the Turks in the north-west—it may be necessary for the British Government to come to this House and say that this country is committed in honour to remain there so that we shall be still further committed in those regions. I think it is a very serious step to ask this House to take, and I hope that, before we are invited to take it there will be a proper constitutional opportunity of voting on the Treaty in the form of a Bill, as was done in the case of the other treaties arising out of the War. In the meantime, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some facts on which we can reflect between now and that time. I should like to ask him, also, whether he will give us some enlightenment on the question of oil in the Mosul Vilayet. I have taken part in one or two of the debates on Iraq, and have been treated to some indignant rebukes from Members of the Coalition Government and from Members of the late Government for suggesting that oil had anything to do with our policy, and, apparently, I am about to be rebuked again by the hon. Member for Stafford. The only person who has been frank on this matter is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He, on one occasion in this House, I will not say blurted out the truth, but boldly faced the facts, in answer, I think, to a speech of mine, when he was Prime Minister and I was in Opposition, before the happy days when we were reunited. The right hon. Gentleman then said—he will not deny it, but will remember it very well—"Yes, there is oil in Mosul, and that is a very good reason why we should stay there. Why should we not try and get this oil?"
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: You cannot have read the papers.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman said that at the Box, and I remember it, and the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) remembers it too.
        Mr. J. JONES: Yes, I remember it, too.
        Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, when he replies, to say what is his opinion on this matter, and in particular what is his opinion, advice and information with regard to the position of the Turkish Petroleum Company—which I understand claims the oil-drilling rights in the Vilayet of Mosul—and does the present Government of Angora show any signs of recognising and ratifying those rights? It is a very complicated matter. The question of the civil list of the late Sultan comes into it. I understand that before the War the oil royalties or the oil lands were replaced on the civil list of the Sultan, and an American company, dominated, I believe, by British interests, has acquired those rights in the civil list. As I have said, it is a very curious history. The most authoritative statement on the matter is contained in the letters of Marquess Curzon to the American Secretary of State on this very question, and I should like to hear the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman on the matter. Furthermore, I. should like to know whether any oil has been discovered. Are oil operations going on, and has anything more been heard of the grandiose scheme of a pipe-line from Mosul to the Levant? I should very much like, to have information on that point, and I think the House, is entitled to know it. This I do know, that oil was, found in Persia before the War, and that we got a great deal after the War, without any negotiations, protectorates or mandates or anything of that kind. We got the oil by arrangement with the local notables, who received a royalty on the amount of oil extracted. I believe we can get oil at Mosul now in that way, and in no other way—certainly not by trampling on Arab nationalism and outraging Arab feelings in this matter.
        The hon. and gallant Member for Skipton (Lieut.-Colonel Roundell) seems to express some dissent from what I am saying, but, if he does not agree, will he read the Treaty and the Protocols? The hon. Member for Stafford talks about the nationalistic feeling among the Arabs, but under these Protocols no official can be appointed without the approval of the British Government, and 25 per cent, of the expenditure of the country is to be expended on military equipment and

        1935
        armaments. That, I think, is a disgraceful thing to put into any Treaty drawn up by a representative of His Majesty's Government. In fact, from first to last there is no sort of independence at all. When the hon. Member for Stafford talks about a separate independent political entity, he must have an extraordinary idea of what is independence and what is separation. There is no independence at all. King Feisal's Government, by this Treaty, is put into leading-strings. There is a strong party in Iraq that is opposed to ratification, although, naturally, I condemn their extremist terrorist methods. With regard to the question of the actual election of King Feisal, that, after all, is ancient history, though I certainly think some reply should be made by the Colonial Secretary to the extraordinary article which appeared in the "Westminster Gazette" of yesterday. I think that that calls for some reply. I do not endorse the statements made in it at all, but certainly I think something should be said about them.
        The whole policy of our remaining in Iraq after the Armistice with Turkey was wrong. We advanced into Mosul after the Turks had laid down their arms for no adequate military reason, but for, I am afraid, very adequate economic reasons which are not creditable to this country. We remained in that country when we could easily have left, when Turkey was weak, before Mustapha Kemal's movement had started, and before we had seen the resurrection of Turkish military power. We could have left then, allowing the Arabs to set up their own form of Government and to invite our help, instead of forcing our assistance upon them. Even Dow it is not too late to reverse our policy. The strategical position is dangerous. The late Sir Henry Wilson is well known to have been very strongly against the questionable policy of trying to defend a frontier several thousand miles away from the sea. It is the only part of the world in which the British are committed to trying to defend a territory many thousand miles from the sea, except in the case of India, which has a naturally strong frontier on the north. In Iraq, as the hon. Member for Stafford has said, the northern plains are open to raiders from the north, and with a strong military power in Turkey,
        1936
        there will always be that danger in Mosul, which, apparently, we are to be committed in the dark to defend indefinitely.
        Mr. GREENE: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman infer that we broke the terms of the Armistice by marching into Mosul?
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What I said was that it was not necessary for us to occupy Mosul, after the Turkish surrender, and after the terms of the Armistice. Speaking from memory—the hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong—I understand that we were entitled by the terms of the Armistice to occupy areas which were necessary for military safety, or words to that effect, but I say we did it, not for military reasons, but for economic reasons—in order, perhaps, to hold more territory for future bargaining, or, perhaps, for the purpose of safeguarding territories to which British interests had a claim for the purpose of extracting oil; but I do not think there was any clear military reason for that advance. If the hon. Member corrects me I will accept the correction, but in any case it is quite irrelevant to my main argument. My main argument is that we are in a strategically impossible position in trying to hold that country, and, with a reviving military strength in Turkey, our position will become increasingly dangerous there.
        There are two other matters I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with. One is with regard to the question of cotton. We were promised that there would be great cotton growing areas. What has happened there? Was that a dream, like the great oil deposits which were going to be discovered? Secondly, is there any possibility of railway communications being established leading from the Persian Gulf to the Levant or Constantinople? The original project of the railway to Bagdad and beyond was a British project. It was taken up by the Germans because the British pioneers were not encouraged. It is a matter of tremendous importance to the true British Empire, quite outside the mandated areas, that the means of communication with India should be shortened up, and I hope it will be possible to have the railway completed. I do not believe the Turks have any intention whatever of venturing again

        1937
        into the Mesopotamian plains. I have talked to many leading Turks who hold high positions in the present administration in Turkey. They are what I suppose hon. Members opposite would call little Turks—people who object to dissipating their strength in distant regions. They say the former Empire of the Sultans was weakened by adventures in the Yemen and Iraq and they want to consolidate the Turkish race within its own present boundaries, and they are opposed to adventures in Iraq and elsewhere. I believe there would be an immediate outcry in Turkey if any attempt were made to re-annex those regions, but I know that we are not wanted there, except perhaps as milch cows from whom golden milk may be drawn. We are having comparative peace in that country, supported by the white wings of the air squadrons of the Under-Secretary, but there are dangers threatening the country, internal and external, and British interests are negligible. I have mentioned the only three possible ones. As for our alleged pledge to the Arabs, surely our greatest pledge was to give them freedom, and while you hive British forces assisting to hold up the Government of a King who apparently cannot stand without that assistance, whatever else we have done we have not brought freedom to the people on whom we spent so much blood and treasure.
        Mr. THOMAS: My difficulty at the moment is that, in the ordinary course, this Vote would have given an opportunity of a survey of the general situation. I should have preferred it not being taken to-day, so that the various Commissions I have appointed to consider the whole situation might have an opportunity of reporting to me, and I might have. availed myself of the opportunity to state a broad general policy dealing with the whole Colonial situation. But, this bring the Middle Eastern Vote, I am in duty bound to reply to the criticisms which have been made. I hope the opportunity will also he taken of this Vote to refer to a question which is equally important, in my judgment, namely, the position of our Dominions in International Conferences. I am disturbed over the situation, and I hope the Committee will give me an opportunity at a later stage to say something on that aspect of the question. Therefore, I am
        1938
        rising at this stage, as it were, to deal with the question of Iraq, and L hope not ruling out the opportunity of saying something on the other matter.
        Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make a statement later on this important issue?
        Mr. THOMAS: Yes.
        Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Permission to speak twice will not be necessary in Committee.
        Mr. THOMAS: I want to be excused for taking up the time of the Committee in speaking twice.
        Earl WINTERTON: In order to get this clear, I understand the question the right hon. Gentleman refers to—no one on this side has any objection to it being raised; indeed, I understand one of my right hon. Friends intended to raise it—will have to be on another Vote. What the right hon. Gentleman wants is that this Vote should come to an end at some period during the evening, if the Committee be willing, when the second question may be raised.
        Mr. THOMAS: Yes, because this is cleanly a Vote on the Middle East, and it will not be in Order to raise the question at this stage. I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved his reduction, not because of any particular sin applicable to myself or to the Government, but because he seizes this opportunity to have a general fling at all Governments which have been responsible for Iraq. His speech and his action today can be summarised something like this: "All Governments in the past, including the Government with which I was associated when it was in power, were responsible for all manner of blunders. The reason for that is that they never availed themselves of my advice, and I am the only individual in a position to seize this opportunity to blame everybody in power, and the present Government is merely a side issue."
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Nothing of the sort. I voted against the other Governments, and I am consistent in this, that I shall probably vote against this Government as well.
        Mr. THOMAS: I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman is explaining his consistency and everyone else's inconsistency.

        1939
        That is the fact to which I was drawing attention. I do not blame him in the least. But whatever may be the complaint, let us not make debating points on this issue, because things said in the present position of Iraq may not be understood in the same sense there as we understand them in this House. Whatever may have been the reasons for going into Iraq—I know there are differences of opinion; I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) argue that we never ought to have gone beyond Basra. I have heard the argument against him that it would be absurd, having gone to Basra, to remain there, and not go beyond it. I have heard it argued that the one and only reason was the protection of the Persian Gulf. What I want to make clear is that, whatever may have been the reason, it was a war reason. It was a military necessity and justifiable, under the circumstances, in the view of those who were responsible at that time. That shortly is the situation.
        In giving effect to that, certain clear and definite pledges were made, and the position we find ourselves in to-day is precisely that in which any other Government would find itself, and they would he brought right up against this fact. Never mind whether you agree with the original policy. Never mind whether it was good or bad. Whatever may have been said on that aspect of the question, if pledges were given to the Arab population, can any Government, however much they may not be responsible. for the initial policy, take the responsibility of repudiating it? That, in a few words, is a summary of the situation, and that is exactly the position that we found ourselves in as a Government. if that be the fact, if those were the promises genuinely made in the name of the British people, I put it to the Committee that what we have to do is to say how far we can honourably give effect to our pledged word, without taking an unreasonable unconstitutional line or inflicting injustice upon anyone else. I come immediately to the charge made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Why he should have given a kind of preference to the "West-minister Gazette" I do not know, because on reading the "Westminster Gazette"
        1940
        yesterday I took that as being the key to the Debate to-day. I could almost name the writer of the article. I read it very carefully. In substance, the statement is this: When the Treaty was up for ratification, all manner of intimidation was brought to bear, it is implied at the instance of the Government, in order to ensure its ratification. Without going into details, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept that as the general statement of the article, and of what he said to-day.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, I did not say that.
        Mr. THOMAS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman went a bit beyond it. He said, "I have barely stated what the article said, and I have understated what I said would happen." I can only state the action of the present Government. We knew there were going to be difficulties about the ratification of the Treaty. We knew of the opposition to the Treaty. We knew the agitation that was being worked up. With the support of every one of my colleagues, I gave clear and specific instructions that no threats of any sort were to be used to these people that we did not intend to carry out, because I was convinced that there had been too many threats made, with no intention of carrying them out, with the result that no notice was taken of our word. My clear and specific instructions, given acted upon throughout, were these: "Here is the Treaty. It is fulfilling an obligation. It is carrying out the promises made by the British people. It is carrying out the mandate of the League of Nations. It is open to you to ratify or otherwise. If you do not ratify it, we merely go to the League of Nations, and say, We have discharged our obligations, and it is for you to say what is to happen.' ". Those were the exact instructions given from first to last, and not only given, but anticipated by me, because I even went the length of warning the League of Nations in advance, so that the matter would be on the Agenda for the very next meeting, of the possibility of the rejection of the Treaty, and telling them clearly what the policy of the Government was to be.
        5.0 P.M.
        I put it to my right hon. Friend, or any other Member of the House, could any Government act fairer than that? That

        1941
        was straight and honest to the Iraq people. That was saying to them, "We are going to be loyal, and discharge our obligations." That was saying to the League of Nations, "We have done our duty; it is for you to say what is to be the position in the future"; and it was saying to the whole of the world, " We are loyal to our pledge given by the British people." That is the answer I give to all this charge of intimidation. It is said that people did not turn up. People do not turn up to this House, but it is not always that they cannot turn up. It is sometimes not desirable that they should, and, therefore, I can only conclude that Members of Parliament there were no different from Members of Parliament here; and without any intimidation of any sort or kind, they did not find it desirable to turn up on that particular day. But the most significant fact is that at least a number of those who bitterly opposed the Treaty, who led the opposition to the Treaty—the principal leader at this moment is the Prime Minister, who, judging by my correspondence, shows every desire to be loyal, and I am quite sure believes the Treaty was the best thing that ever happened, and feels that he made a mistake when he opposed it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the price?"] I should say in his case it was the price of being Prime Minister. I do not know. I am stating the facts, and I am merely contenting myself with meeting the charge that we, the Government, were responsible. That is the charge made, and that is all I have got to answer. I answer it by saying that no kind of intimidation of any sort was brought. to bear so far as His Majesty's Government were concerned.
        I come to the next question raised by my hon. Friend, and that was, what do I know about the oil? My answer is that I know about as much as he does, and that is nothing. I will tell him what I have endeavoured to ascertain with regard to the promise made to the Turkish Petroleum Company. As I understand the position, it is shortly this Originally, this was a concession between the Germans and ourselves. Then the War came the French took over the German part of the bargain, and it became a French and British 50–50 deal. The next stage, as I understand, was that America came in, and there was
        1942
        another division of a third each to America, France and ourselves. The next stage was that Italy came in, and it became 25 per cent. each. That was the position when last I ascertained it. I do. not know what it is at this moment, but we cannot get away from the fact that a promise of concession was made to thin company, that is the original company of two, which is now a company of four. That promise was repeated at Lausanne by Lord Curzon. As far as I understand, that has been made clear to the Iraq Government. If my hon. Friend puts the question to me, I do not think it is a good thing—and I say it. quite deliberately—that a concession should have been recognised to any one body. I have no hesitation in saying it ought to be left free to all. That is my own personal view of the situation, but I am dealing with the facts as they were.

        That aspect of the question brings me at once to the question put by my hon. Friend as to what is the Government's position with regard to the frontier negotiations. Of course, I suppose it is true to say that the boring for oil in Mosul has some bearing, apparently, on that question, and the difficulty that we found ourselves in was shortly this: We attempted to settle the frontier, by direct negotiations, and failed. The next negotiations at Constantinople, when Sir Percy Cox represented us, came to nothing. Under the Treaty the question is now referred to the League of Nations, and the Foreign Office is dealing with the matter at this moment. It would be unwise, and, indeed, it would he dangerous for me to express a view at this stage of the negotiations. All I can say is that, as far as we are concerned, we hope to settle this matter amicably with the Turks. We believe it is capable of adjustment, and we are working in that direction. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend says, that as far as the cost of this Vote is concerned, it is unfairly borne by the Colonial Office.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask a question with regard to the subject of oil? Surely these negotiations were simply with regard to nationalities in the Mosul Vilayet, and oil did not figure in them at all?
        Mr. THOMAS: What I explained very carefully was that the latest commitment

        1943
        was at Lausanne, when a promise was given to the Turkish Petroleum Company. As far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we are negotiating on the question of the frontier, not on the basis of oil at all, but on the basis of trying to secure justice to everybody in that particular quarter, regardless of any oil interests. It is quite true, as I have already indicated, that this Vote was unfairly borne by the Colonial Office, but it is only fair to say that a tremendous reduction has taken place. For instance, when Mr. Churchill first introduced the Estimates in 1920, the total was £75,000,000 for 1919–20. It was £40,000,000 for 1920–21. For 1921–22, £29,000,000 was provided, and the actual expenditure was £27,000,000. In 1922–23, £11,000,000 was provided and £10,000,000 spent. In 1923–24, £8,673,000 was provided. The figures of the actual expenditure are not yet available, but we are satisfied there will be a saving. Please observe the difference between £75,000,000 in 1920, and £5,700,000 for the current year. Of this figure Palestine is responsible for nearly £1,000,000, and Iraq for £24,714,000.
        Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures of the total British expenditure in Iraq since the Armistice?
        Mr. THOMAS: No: the right hon. Gentleman must total them up as I give them out. I have called attention to the main reduction. The only other point with which I want to deal is the question of the four years. I do not think anyone speaking from this bench can give any guarantee. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend would say, "Wait and see." We are committed to clearing out in four years. In the interval we are developing a situation there which all tends to show that we can get out in four years, but it would be equally dangerous for me to say that we could get out in four years, and then something should arise which would alter the whole situation. Therefore, I am not going to say it. We hope to get. out, and we intend to get out, if we are here, and if you will keep us here we will get out. It is only if you make the mistake of not keeping us here that you will be responsible. We hope to get out, but we want to leave the country honourably. We are making provision for the officers to whom we are under an obliga
        1944
        tion. There is a number of British officers who are taking service under the Iraq Government. We must accept the responsibility for them should anything go wrong. We do not think there is a liability, but, if there be, it is a liability we ought to take, and not throw upon the individuals. I have not pretended to know the history of Iraq, or pretended to know very much about it. I have merely given to the Committee a general statement as I understand it. I am satisfied my hon. Friends will say we are carrying on their policy, that my hon. Friends here will say we are doing better than they did, and that my hon. Friend who moved the reduction will say, "I am glad I moved the reduction, because I have now got all the information I want."
        Mr. WARDLAW MILNE: Although I entirely support the right hon. Gentleman's desire, as I am sure the whole Committee do, to give time for the important matters which require to be discussed to-day, I think if he had seen fit to wait a little longer he would possibly have been able to answer one or two other questions by Members who are interested in that part of the world. The right hon. Gentleman did not reply entirely to the very important questions raised by my hon. Friend, in regard to railways and other matters of that kind. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I do not in the least want to press him for any very definite statement at the present moment with regard to the question of frontiers, nor do I want to follow him in regard to the suggestion that if the Labour Government are in power, or in office, there is a certainty that we shall clear out of Iraq in four years. It will be noticed that the right hon. Gentleman made two statements which, if I may say so without offence, rather contradicted each other. He began by saying—very wisely, I think—that no one could state definitely when it was possible for us to get out, but that everyone hoped to get out in four years. He went on to say that if the House would guarantee that the Labour Government would be in power four years hence, they would get out of Iraq—two very different statements.
        The responsible members of the Constituent Assembly of Bagdad place enormous importance upon the question of Mosul. It is no use our wasting time

        1945
        talking about it from the standpoint of oil. It has nothing whatever to do with oil. I do not think there. is any difference of opinion in this House that we went to Mesopotamia for reasons utterly different from and utterly opposed to any question of oil or anything of that sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Hon. Members opposite are entitled to their own opinions, but if they will read the history of the times they will realise that there can be no question of our having gone there for such an ulterior purpose. The. position to-day is this, that Mosul is entirely dependent upon Bagdad and Bagdad is entirely dependent upon Mosul. The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that it was possible that raids might be made upon Mosul and that there was no possibility of any protection. That is con trary to facts. There is an impassable barrier, but that does not mean that it is impossible for raids to be made, because even across a so-called impassable barrier raids can be made. We speak of an impassable barrier in the North of India, but we know that raids have been made there from time immemorial.
        If Mosul is to remain part of Iraq, then immediately we are faced with the important question as to the possibility of the Government of that country in the future protecting its own frontier. The whole question of the frontier and of Mosul belonging to Iraq depends entirely upon what the Government of King Feisal can do in the future to maintain an army capable of protecting their own frontier. I do not want to enter into the question of negotiations. I have no doubt that the Turks will put forward many imaginary claims regarding Mosul, as in fact they have already done. Certainly 40 percent. at least of the normal population of Mosul are non-Turkish. That 40 percent. will, in my opinion, if the country is to be handed over to the Turks, be driven out. There is no doubt about it that the non-Turkish population will be forced out if Mosul is to be returned to the Turkish Government. That population wishes to remain in its own villayet.
        The Treaty terminates upon the entry of Iraq into the League of Nations. I do not know when that may take place, but there is no reason why it should be long delayed. The military agreement between this country and Iraq does not, however,
        1946
        depend upon the period of our occupation. That is a matter which is not always recognised. The question of the military agreement between this country and Iraq continues after the period of four years. It is on that point that I would have liked to press the right hon. Gentleman to give us sonic information, and, if he has an opportunity before the Debate ends, I should like him to tell us his view as to what is going to happen in that connection.
        This is not in any sense a party matter. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that it is not a question of the present Government having carried out the policy of their predecessors, or the late Government having carried out the policy of their predecessors. We went into Mesopotamia, as the right hon. Gentleman said, for definite war reasons, and we have to stay there until we can ensure that the Government of King Feisal can carry on safely and satisfactorily and hold its own among the nations of the world. That is not a thing that can be done in a moment. It is ridiculous to expect an assembly like that at Bagdad to function, satisfactorily in a moment. Some of its members are people who, as they say themselves, have not the ability to read or write. It was stated by one of the most eminent of the Bedouin chiefs, who bears one of the most famous names in Eastern Arabia, that he was more than anxious to work amicably for the future of this most wonderful land. It is not only a question of these particular people from the outlying districts, but there are vast numbers of people in the towns, highly educated communities, Jews, Christians, and others, who are also vitally interested in the future of Iraq.
        We have to take up this position, that until we are satisfied that the future peace of Arabia can be maintained without our troops, and without our support, we have to remain there sufficiently long to support the Government of that country for our own sake, as well as theirs. It is not only for the sake of Iraq but it is for our own sake. The whole peace of the world depends, in my opinion, largely upon peace in the Near East. That peace, again, depends largely upon whether in Mesopotamia we have a settled peaceful country, and not a country in a state of continual unrest.

        1947
        It is no use looking at the position from the point of view of what would have happened if we had remained there permanently. That is not now the question. A practical Government, such as the British Government would set up, working efficiently, is not likely ever to be popular in the East. Reference has been made to the collection of taxes to-day. In the old days the collection of taxes in Mesopotamia was a case of bargaining and haggling with the Government official. He was sent there to collect taxes by a system of asking for 12 or 100 times the amount to which the Government were really entitled, and goodness knows how many times more than he ever expected to get. It was a delightful system of bargaining and haggling, which went on for a couple of weeks or so, and in which the great sheiks, even, were accustomed to take part bargaining and haggling well on into the night, as to what they were to pay. In the end they paid a small fraction of what was asked of them, but probably all that the Government was entitled to get. Everybody was entirely happy under that system. It was a system which they liked and understood. Therefore, a system by which the Government demands exactly the amount to which it is entitled is not understood and is not appreciated.
        A great deal has been made of this question of oil. Personally, I am not the least interested whether there is or is not oil in Iraq. We did not go there for oil, and I do not suggest that we should stay there a day longer than is necessary for all the oil there is. There are, however, marvellous possibilities in that country. It is well not to exaggerate the position, but certainly it is a country of great possibilities. It is a country where an enormous population was supported on the land in days gone by, and there can be no doubt that that could be done again. There are wonderful traces of great irrigation works there which show what has been done in the past, but Turkish misrule for nearly 1,000 years has utterly destroyed its prosperity. There is a possibility that the salt which was the great drawback in Sind and in other parts of India where great irrigation works were in progress may also have had some effect in Mesopotamia. No doubt great crops of cotton and other things could be grown there.
        1948
        The interest I have in the country is simply and solely to ensure peace in the East. It is essential that we should have a peaceful country in Eastern Arabia. It is not essential that it should be British, but it is essential that it should be peaceful, and we can only get that by supporting the Government of King Feisal until be can stand alone. That is not, I hope, going to be a long process. The progress so far has been wonderful, considering the conditions. We cannot leave the country until the position arises that we feel that it is safe to stand apart and leave King Feisal to manage affairs for himself.
        In Iraq and the countries surrounding you have, in view of the rapid development of communications in the future, the most wonderful point. in the whole surface of the globe—a point at which it, is more than likely all the great air routes of the future across the world will cross each other. From the point of view of the development of the East and the security of our own Empire in the East we cannot afford to forget that across that district between Bagdad and Damascus there will practically cross all the great air routes of the world, from Petrograd in the North to Cape Town in the South, and from Great Britain or Hamburg right across to Singapore. Mesopotamia was the place where history began, and it may well be the place where history will end. It is going to hold the same place of importance in the future that it held in the past.
        Large numbers of nations have penetrated into Mesopotamia in past centuries, o and it is a curious thing that none of them have lasted unless they have had hold of each end of the chain, the Persian Gulf at one end argil the Mediterranean at the other end. I do not know what may happen in the future when we are splitting up the country as is being done at the present time, but of one thing I am certain, and that is that we must hold on there, not only for the sake of Iraq itself, and not only for the sake of the People of that country, but for the sake of our own pledges and for the sake of peace in the East.
        Mr. LAMBERT: From what I could gather from the speech of the Colonial Secretary, the politicians in Iraq seem to have a very elastic political conscience. A gentleman, who fought very much

        1949
        against the ratification of the Treaty, has changed his mind, and has now become a. fervid admirer of the Treaty. I want to be perfectly certain that the elastic conscience does not extend to the Treasury Bench. I remember that the Labour party voted en bloc for the Amendment which I moved that we should come away from Iraq as soon as possible. Are they going back on their word? Do they propose to remain in Iraq for some indefinite time? I do net want in the least to press the right hen. Gentleman or the Government, but I do press for some kind of settled policy. The Colonial Secretary was good enough to tell me to tot up the tens of millions of pounds that has been spent in Iraq. I have done so, and as far as I can make out, the total comes to about £150,000,000.
        How long is that expenditure to go on? We are told that it may go on for an indefinite time. No one knows the time. I want to get a more clear idea of what are to he the British commitments in Iraq. The right hon. Gentleman talked airily and with a considerable amount of -rhetoric about our pledged word. What is our pledged word? What are our responsibilities in Iraq? The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that we must stay there until King Feisal is firmly established, but is he firmly established? Is he likely to be firmly established? Has he to-day the goodwill of the people, of Iraq? I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us. I ask that we should have some idea of what we are doing. Our responsibilities in Iraq at the present moment are very great. As I understand, we are there to defend the Mosul vilayet against any district. Mosul is 800 miles from the Persian Gulf. Do we realise what that means for the British taxpayer? I read an article some time ago by a distinguished military expert, General Sir William Robertson, who pointed out clearly the responsibilities which the British were undertaking in pledging themselves to defend the Mosul vilayet against any enemy. He said:
        "Most people condemn the Mesopotamian commitment on the ground of expense, but it is equally to ho condemned on the ground of Imperial security."
        That is what I am thinking about. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always pressing the Government to spend more money upon these far away enterprises. You
        1950
        cannot have a reduction of taxation unless you have a reduction of expenditure, and if you are going to throw your money away on Iraq, and on all these wild schemes, then you cannot have a reduction of taxation in this country. We know that our industry is being crippled by the terrific amount of taxation, and that being so, why not limit our responsibilities in these places?
        Mr. MILNE: The right hon. Gentleman gave the figures showing that there is a continuous reduction in the amount of our expenditure.
        Mr. LAMBERT: I know that, but the point is, when is the expenditure going to end? My hon. Friend must believe me that I am genuinely anxious as to what may happen 800 miles from the Persian Gulf. If you have to defend Mosul by British arms, what is going to be the end of it? One knows that the whole Bagdad expedition was one long blunder. It was a blunder to go there. It was condemned by the greatest military experts of the day. The Government. went there against their advice. General Sir William Robertson stated that he was against the advance to Bagdad. But political considerations entered into the matter and we had the advance to Bagdad. When is all this going to end? What is the position in Bagdad? It is stated plainly that King Feisal is not supported by his people, and he is there simply through the support of British armed forces. Do they collect taxes by dropping bombs? The hon. Gentleman who represents the Air Ministry said explicity the other day that they had not changed the policy of the late Government.
        The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): That was not the policy.
        Mr. LAMBERT: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he said that they were dropping bombs in Iraq. He said,
        "whether there are any casualties, I do not know."
        I do not suppose that the airmen can know. They drop their bombs, but they do not drop them in the sand. If they did, they would not have any moral effect in the collection of taxes. But the hon. Gentleman stated frankly that the Government are not reversing the policy

        1951
        of the late Government with regard to Iraq. If that be so, they have an elastic conscience, for when they are in office they say one thing, and when they are out of office they say another. I do not want to embarrass the Government, but I do ask that we shall know where we are. What is the position to-day between King Feisal and his subjects? Is he there because the British are there with their armed forces? When are we to get out of this country? I have not the smallest doubt as to what I should do. I should clear out as soon as possible. I do not believe that the British ought to under take this great commitment. It is seriously menacing the security of India. Our Indian frontier is north of Mosul, instead of being on the Himalayas. Therefore I want a clear definition from the Government as to what is their policy. If they are going on with a policy of staying in Iraq indefinitely, they will break the pledge which they made to the House of Commons, and which they made to their own constituents in the country.
        Lieut.-Colonel T. WILLIAMS: I have listened with a certain amount of depression to the Debate this afternoon. I had thought that every party more or less in this country had decided that we ought to get, out of Iraq as soon as we possibly could. My experience in Iraq dates back many years. I only mentioned this point so as to give some reason for thinking that my opinion may be worth while. I went to Iraq first, to Bagdad, in 1904. I was one of four who were sent. by Lord Curzon to that part of Asia to carry out. propaganda against the Russians. For two years I travelled up and down the Turkish frontier and in Kurdistan and Armenia. Altogether, I have spent from 1904 to 1909 in that part. of the world in very intimate touch with those people, and I was there again during the War. I can assure the House that this Debate has been very unreal. We have been discussing things without any real appreciation of the situation in Iraq. The fact is that we have an absolutely artificial position. I think that the policy of staying there, adopted after the War, was a great mistake. I said so at the time in the light of my previous expreience, and I think our whole policy has been a mistake.
        Everyone who knows about the situation in Iraq at the present moment and the
        1952
        history of the putting of King Feisal on the throne, knows that the position is a purely artificial one which is supported by British arms. It might be argued that you could in a certain time develop there a Government that could stand by itself. In four years I think that it is impossible. In 20 years I believe it to equally impossible. Anyone who knows anything about the Arab Government. and the tribal government which exists—there are only two towns of any size in Iraq—and the sort of government which these people have had, will agree with me that it is impossible to expect that you are going to establish a government there which will remain a steady government and which will give adequate protection to all the people. My own opinion is—people may say that I am pro-Turk when I say this—that two years and more under the Turks gave Iraq a very reasonable government which Iraq could support financially, and my opinion is that the Turks should come back to Iraq, and that in the inevitable march of events something of that sort will occur.
        But I have not risen to discuss this question of Iraq. This little Eastern Vote covers a fairly wide area, and all the various countries concerned are intimately connected. You cannot separate any particular country. I realise the difficulty of the Colonial Secretary. I realise that he has had to take over the inheritance of past Governments. We know that he has been trying very largely to clear up some of the results which have been forced upon us by the Coalition Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was the head. Therefore, I wish to say that I appreciate the difficulties of the Colonial Secretary and of the Government. But it is very necessary that those of us who have intimate knowledge of that part of the world should not lose any occasion of bringing the facts before the Government, and urging upon them the necessity of reconsidering the attitude which they have adopred.
        As far as Iraq, Trans-Jordania and Arabia are concerned. I believe that the Government are honestly trying to get out of our responsibilities there. But there is one part of the world where they have accepted the policy of past. Governments, and are as definitely committed to the policy of past Governments as they could well be, and that is in Palestine,

        1953
        and I wish on this Vote to raise the question of Palestine and to ask the Colonial Secretary—I do not expect to convince him—to reconsider the whole situation. If you look at the Near and Middle East one may truthfully say that in general we have now come round to a policy of consulting, and trying to pursue a policy in accordance with the wishes of, the inhabitants of those countries, but there is one exception, and that exception is Palestine.
        In Palestine we are definitely ignoring the wishes of the people of the country and the policy which we are pursuing is a policy designed to carry out the desires of international jewry, and you are up against the definite proposition that you have in Palestine a policy pursued contrary to the desires of the inhabitants. I hope that the House will alow me to recapitulate very briefly the facts about Palestine. Everyone knows that the population of Palestine is predominantly Mahommedan. The population is about 750,000. Of these 650,000 are Mahommedans. About 50,000 or 60,000 are Christians, and the balance are Jews. There is no doubt that the Mahommedans and Christians are intensely hostile to the whole Zionist policy in Palestine. A considerable number of orthodox Jews in Palestine are also hostile to the policy. Over 90 percent. of the people of Palestine are hostile to the policy which we are pursuing.
        We must remember that these people in Palestine, whether Jews, Moslem or Christian, are very largely the original inhabitants of Palestine. Events changed their religion. The original inhabitants, who had become Jews, under the Roman Empire became Christians, and under the Arab Empire became Mahommedans. The large majority of these people are in their national home. Outside Palestine you have a population of Jews of from 11,000,000 to 14,000,000. The policy that is being pursued in Palestine is in the interests of those 11,000,000 to 14,000,000. That policy is based on a Declaration, the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It is one of those declarations which one. would rather expect from the Government of that day, because it can be read several ways. It is quite possible, indeed, for the present Government to alter its policy, and I do not think that anyone could take exception
        1954
        to it under that Declaration. This is what the Declaration says:
        "His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for Jewish people and will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, …"
        Here a qualification is introduced. The declaration goes on:
        "…. it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
        It is common knowledge to everyone that the speeches of the Zionists and the actions which were taken in Palestine did justify the inhabitants of Palestine in assuming that the policy to be pursued was to control Palestine in the interest of the Jews until the Jews became a majority in the country, when the Government could be handed over to them for Jewish control. It is in the recollection of the House that various events occurred as a reaction to that policy. It is quite true that, seeing the impossibility of forcing that policy upon the people of the country without an enormous exhibition of force, we have latterly been pursuing a policy which is much more moderate. That is admitted. But still we will not change our policy and admit that we made a mistake, and that we are definitely going to run the country in the interests of the Arab inhabitants, whether Christian, Jew or Moslem. We have brought the country to such, a state, that I am assured by friends whose opinion I value, who have had great experience in the East, that the people of Palestine are now so fed up that they would welcome the Turks back. I can well believe it.
        The issue really is, shall Palestine be run in the interest of its present inhabitants or in the interests of international Jewry? I submit that we should have no hesitation in saying that the idea behind political Zionism is unsound, unworkable and against the best interests of the Jews themselves. There is no doubt that many Jews realise that fact. Mr. Morgenthau, the American Ambassador at Constantinople, characterised the Zionist desires as a disaster for the Jews. That statement is certain to turn out to be the case. The present policy is obviously a policy of controlling the country in the interest of

        1955
        a privileged minority. I put it to the Minister that, at any rate, that is a policy contrary to the principles of our party. If it is to be supported there must be some very strong overriding arguments to justify it. When you press the supporters of Zionism into a corner on this question they generally fall back on two lines of argument. One is that the Jews are a Palestinian race who were exiled from Palestine and have been persecuted ever since, and that they ought to be allowed to return. The second is that the return of these Western Jews, with their ideas of progress, will cause such great improvement and raise the standard of the people of Palestine so much, that the policy will be of great benefit to the people of Palestine themselves.
        I will deal with the second argument first. Those who know the East will agree that one of the great troubles between us and the East is our thinking that our ideas of progress must be suitable for the East. Eastern peoples do not appreciate our ideas of progress. I am satisfied to let the inhabitants of Palestine remain in the agricultural and pastoral conditions in which they live. I have lived in those conditions myself, and I think they are just as pleasant to live in as our Western conditions. If the people like them, it is no argument to say that they ought to he glad to benefit by some other system to which they have never been accustomed. Now I come to my strongest argument against the whole policy. That is the question, Are the Jews a race exiled from Palestine? If they are not, I submit that the whole case for Zionism falls to the ground. I want to bring forward some arguments, mainly from Jewish sources, that they are not a race. The first evidence I would give is my own. I am a doctor. I have spent 23 years in all the countries concerned—in Russia, the Balkans, Turkey, Persia, India and Arabia—and I have examined Jews from an anthropological point of view, and I have always been struck by the very great differences of race that obviously occur. Last year I went to the Near East specially to look at the Spanish Jews of Salonika and the Jews in Galatz. Anyone who saw them would agree that they obviously are different races. A study of other religions shows that it is extremely unlikely that
        1956
        a religion could have spread in this way by migration of peoples, and then that there should have been such great increase in their population. The evidence of other religions supported the assumption that probably this great spread of Judaism in all these countries was due to Proselytism, as it had been in the case of all other great religions—Christianity, Mohammedanism, Bhuddism and the rest. But when one comes to history also, one finds that it is so. It is not generally believed to be so.
        Of course, I cannot bore the House with a great deal of evidence, but I want to give evidence for each statement from Jewish sources. This is a short extract from a History of the Jews by Paul Goodman, a strong Zionist:
        "While Judaism was, on the one side, suffering from losses occasioned by the absorption of a number of its members among their pagan neighbours, and, on the other, by the ultimate secession of the adherents of Jesus of Nazareth, large accessions to the ranks were taking place by numerous conversions to the faith of Israel. It is an old and still current misconception that Judaism is averse to the incorporation of strangers within its midst. But it is an entirely erroneous idea that the Jews are opposed to proselytism out of sheer tribal exclusiveness. Apart from the assimilation of the autochthonous population of Palestine and the forced conversion of the Edomites, Judaism acquired numerous adherents from among the various nations with which it came into contact from the time of the Babylonian captivity till the rise of the Christian Empire of Rome …. you find Jewish proselytes all over the Roman Empire and in neighbouring Parthica."
        If any Member wishes to pursue this subject he will find any amount of evidence, from Jewish authors themselves, that the Jews know this fact, that their adherents all over the world are the descendants of proselytes. They will be able to confirm my various statements. Being convinced that the Jews are the descendants of proselytes, when you come to examine the position of Jews in the world you find that tine-tenths of them outside Palestine are in Russia and Central Europe. You naturally ask how they came there. Again history gives an indication. It is a known historical fact that there was a very large Empire in Southern Russia, the Empire of Khazar, which was converted wholly to judaism. The Emperor of the Khazar, the grandees and the various large masses of the population were converted to Judaism

        1957
        The Khazar Empire stretched through Bulgaria to the Caspian, from the Black Sea right up into Russia. I will give a small extract from a Jewish Encyclopaedia on this point:
        "It was probably about that time that the Emperor of the Khazar and his grandees, together with a large number of his heathen people, embraced the Jewish religion."
        That is not all the evidence. There is more that will help; there is the anthropological evidence. If you turn to the science of anthropology and examine what the results show you will find" that the real Jew, the Jew of Palestine, who is an Arab, belongs to one of the longest headed races in the world. The Jews of Russia, are one of the broadest headed races in the world. Anyone wishing to pursue this subject can get the evidence.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this discussion regarding the anthropological aspect of the question would not be more appropriate on the Vote for the Ministry of Health, and the reference to Russia more appropriate on the Foreign Office Vote than on the Vote of the Colonial Office?
        The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The hon. and gallant Member is giving a rather detailed history of the race, but I understand that he is giving reasons why the policy of the Government should be altered. I hope that he will not go into too great detail.
        6.0 P. M.
        Lieut.-Colonel WILLIAMS: I am sorry if I have gone into too great detail. It is obvious that my case rests upon this—that the Jews outside Palestine are not a Palestinian race. Therefore, it is necessary for me to give some evidence that I am not merely expressing a pious opinion. I will give the Committee only one further extract to show that there is anthropological evidence in favour of what I say. This is from a book on "The Races of Europe" by a distinguished anthropologist:
        "The original Semitic stock must have been in origin strongly dolichocephalic, that is to say African as the Arabs are to-day; from which it follows naturally that about nine-tenths of the living Jews are as widely different in head form from the parent stock as they well could be. The boasted purity of descent of the Jews is, then, a myth. Renan is right after ali
        1958
        in his assertion that the ethnographic significance of the word 'Jew,' for the Russian and Danubian branch at least, long ago ceased to exist."
        That concludes my evidence. I am sorry if I have bored the Committee, but I considered it necessary to support my statements by some evidence, and if any hon. Member wishes to pursue the subject further I shall be very glad to show him a great deal of further evidence. The case against Zionism rests on the fact that in Palestine you find a people who are in their national home, and it does not matter whether they are Christians, Jews or Mahommedans. Outside Palestine you have 11,000,000 people who claim Palestine as their national home and who are ready to go back there, whatever the people of Palestine may think at the present moment. My point is that, historically and generally, all the evidence goes to show that the Jews outside Palestine are not the descendants of people who ever came out of Palestine; that Palestine is not their national home, but that their national home is in Southern Russia and Central Asia. If I am right in my contention, it is obvious you are acting most, unjustly in subordinating the wishes of these poeple who are in their national home to the wishes of people whose national home it never was.
        Earl WINTERTON: The speech which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just delivered is the sort of speech which is exceedingly grateful to a party anxious to keep off the decision on any particular Vote, and as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not made the speech for that reason, I can only congratulate him, in the name of the Committee, on being such an enthusiastic and expert anthropologist. At the same time, he will not think it out of place if I observe that his references to the Jewish race and to his dislike for their racial characteristics, belong to the class of speech in regard to which one ought to exercise great care.
        Lieut.-Colonel WILLIAMS: I am not aware that in my speech I expressed any dislike of the Jewish race. I am an anti-Zionist, but large numbers of Jews themselves are anti-Zionists.
        Earl WINTERTON: Let me put it differently. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman observes—as he did, because

        1959
        it was the whole basis of his argument—that the Jews are not a race, I should, if I may do so without impertinence, advise him to use that argument with considerable care in some circles in this country, because I do not think it would be very popularly received. What struck me about the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was that he delivered what I can only describe as a very elaborate attack upon Zionism in Palestine on the ground of the impossibility of reconciling the aspirations of Zionism with the aspirations of Arab and Christian nationalism in that territory, and yet neither the hon. and gallant Gentleman nor any one who Spoke from those benches either above or below the Gangway, except the Secretary of State for the Colonies, has put the case which I propose to put to the Committee for Arab nationalism or nationality—whichever you like to call it—in Iraq itself.
        I hope the Committee will accept from me the assurance, which is perfectly sincere, that I speak solely from the point of view of a supporter of Arab nationalism and nationality, not only because as it happens, I am a close personal friend of King Feisal and members of his former and present Governments, but because I had the privilege and advantage of serving as a comrade-in-arms with him during the campaign in 1918. From those years onwards I have been a strong adherent of Arab nationalism both in the House of Commons and on platforms in the country, and I have advocated giving a chance to Arab nationalism to find a home for itself in some part of the Middle East. It is from that point of view I propose to address myself to the Committee now. In the first place, while I am quite prepared to say that opponents of the Arabs are, or were, to be found in all parties, I challenge anyone in the Committee to deny that this country as a whole, and not merely any party in this country, is deeply pledged to provide a national home for the Arabs, and that when one speaks of providing a national home for the Arabs the main location must be in the historic Mesopotamian territory. There can surely be no difference of opinion about that. All parties are pledged to it, and when the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) makes a speech which in some parts seems anti-Turk and
        1960
        in others anti-Arab, in some parts anti-Conservative and in other parts—if I may use the expression—anti-the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), let me say that to my mind all these matters are of very small importance compared with the central fact that we are pledged as much as any people could be pledged, not one party but the whole nation, to set up an Arab nation under our auspices.
        If we are all agreed upon that point let me go to my next point. I agree fully with the hon. and gallant Gentleman—I know his opinion of the matter from previous speeches—that great mistakes were made by the Coalition Government in the year of the Armistice and the years immediately following. There was an attempt to graft upon Iraq a form of government wholly alien to that country, the sort of government which existed in India before the days of the reforms, a Government which the Arabs certainly did not want, for which they could not pay and which cost more than this country could possibly afford. Then better counsels prevailed and it was decided that our support of the youthful Arab nation in Iraq must be as slender as circumstances permitted or, in other words, that as soon as the nation could stand upon its own feet we mint withdraw military and financial aid. The result of that policy is to be seen in the state of affairs to-day and in the very striking decrease in expenditure for the present year compared with the year 1919–20 or even the year 1920–21. To listen to a speech such as that made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molten (Mr. Lambert) one would suppose this country had no commitment of any kind. The right hon. Gentleman said if he were dictator he would clear out of that country as soon as possible. That may be his view, and to do him justice it has been his view since the Armistice, but he ignores the fact that not only the Members of the party on this side but Members of his own party, and at any rate some Members of the Glove-nil-tent party were committed to the policy in the later stages of the War of setting up a national Arab state in Iraq. It is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would clear out as soon as possible. Does the right hon. Gentleman and his party believe in the importance of a pledge given on behalf of the whole people of this

        1961
        country or not? Do they say that while it is true this country gave a pledge, yet if we find it inconvenient to carry out the pledge because it may cost more money than we anticipated, we should then get—out? Is that their attitude?
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely our pledge was to free the Arabs from the rule of the Turks. How are we doing that by keeping a bureaucracy and an army of our own?
        Earl WINTERTON: I am very glad the hon. and gallant Member has intervened, because that is the kind of interruption which I welcome. I was going on to deal with that very matter. Does any sane person, who has any knowledge of the Near East, either from being on the spot or from reading what has occurred there in the last six years, say that if we, at the time of the Armistice, had withdrawn our military and air forces from Iraq, the Arabs alone would have been able to maintain that country against the Turks.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We withdrew from the Hedjaz and left a government there in being. Why could not we withdraw from Iraq?

        Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps, as I was with the Northern Arab Army during the War, the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to correct his history. We have never been in the Hedjaz. Except for seven or eight British officers, of whom I was one, and an armoured car company which went, largely, to protect those officers, there was never a single British soldier in the Hedjaz. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not betray his complete ignorance of the course of events in the Near East in that way. Does he really draw any military comparison between conditions in Iraq and conditions in the Hedjaz? What were the conditions of Iraq? By a series of exploits almost unparalleled even in the last War, as regards sacrifice and heroism on the part of the troops of this country, we succeeded in bringing that country, which is 90 per cent. Arab or Kurdish, from beneath the yoke of the Turk under which it had groaned for so many years. After we had done that the Arabs, through their accredited representatives, asked us to allow them to set up a national government in that country. While it is true
        1962
        that certain events occurred immediately after the Armistice, due I think to mistakes in policy and to the belief that we were going to annex Iraq to the British Empire, there is no single Arab of any importance in Iraq who holds the view that without British assistance it would have been possible for the Arabs to have prevented the Turks from coming back to that country immediately after we had withdrawn. Nobody could take such a view on the plain military facts of the situation.
        What is the problem with which the Coalition and subsequent Governments have been faced? Knowing the feeling in this country, which is undoubtedly strong against entangling commitments in Iraq; realising that we have neither the money nor the men to maintain ourselves in that country except as a support of the young Arab Government until such time as that Government can stand upon its own legs, we entered into a treaty or arrangement or endeavoured to enter into a treaty or arrangement with the Government of that country through its accredited representatives. I, personally, as a sincere. well-wisher of the Arabs and a great friend of many Arab statesmen, resent as much as anyone can resent, the sneering and slighting references made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull to the action of their assembly in discussing the treaty. I think those references will be very ill received in that country. Wherever else the hon. and gallant Gentlemen's name is honoured as a supporter of small nationalities it will not be in Iraq. His general attitude is that of a protector of all young nationalities and I understand that people travel from the farthest quarters of Russia in order to have the great privilege and advantage of interviewing the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Russia is not a small nationality.
        Earl WINTERTON: On the contrary, there were a great many small nationalities in Russia who have been entirely wiped out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's friends the Bolsheviks. Whatever may be his attitude to small nationalities generally, I do not think the people of Iraq will be grateful for his intervention this afternoon. I defy anyone in this Committee to suggest any other line than that

        1963
        which the late Government and the present Government have taken and are taking in the matter of Iraq. We are reducing our commitments there as quickly as we can. We have been, and we are, urging the Arab Government in that country to fit themselves, not only to govern their country from an internal point of view, but to protect it from external aggression. I hope and believe—I believe there are many things which are hopeful, even in that country, where so many hopes have been blighted—that that country will, in a very few years, be in a position to protect and defend itself, and I believe that., when that day is reached, the chance of trouble over the Mosul Vilayet, or any other part of the Northern frontier, will be very much less than it is to-day. There is that danger to-day, and I do not. want to say anything about that, because I think it is far better that the question of the arrangements to be made with regard to Mosul should be left where they were left by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
        I have only one other word to say, and that is that I think it is very desirable that we should at the earliest opportunity have from the Government an authoritative statement as to their attitude with regard to the ratification of the Treaty, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, ignoring certain aspects of the Debate this afternoon, will accept. as the expression of this Committee and, I believe, of an overwhelming majority of the country outside, the opinion that the Treaty should be ratified, and that we should continue to hold out the hand of friendship that we have always held out to the people of Mesopotamia. I feel very deeply on this subject, in which I have been interested for many years, and if we can, as I believe we can, help this young Arab State to take its part in the comity of nations, we shall, at any rate in one part of the world since the War, have done an act which will not only be of great benefit to our own prestige, but will show that, not for the first time, the attitude of this great country towards countries in other parts of the world, and especially towards young countries, is one of help and assistance, and not of aggression and defiance, and, further, we shall have obtained for ourselves the
        1964
        friendship of a Power in the Middle East which may be of great value to us in years to come.
        Mr. THOMAS: The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has asked, Does the Government intend to treat this Vote and this discussion as being sufficient in itself to warrant them in ratifying the Treaty Certainly. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to a promise made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That promise meant, and could only mean, that before a Treaty was ratified, an opportunity such as this would be given to the House to discuss it. I would put to my hon. and gallant Friend two points on that. This is the only opportunity that the House could have during this Session.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why?
        Mr. THOMAS: Because the House will be rising at the end of next week, and no opportunity, so far as Government business is concerned, could be given.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You could give another day.
        Mr. THOMAS: My hon. and gallant Friend knows very well that the other day would be Saturday or Monday, and that there would be serious objections to either. Besides, I cannot conceive of my hon. and gallant Friend making an abler speech on this matter than he has made to-day, and if we take that as being the measure of his criticism, I ask him, in common fairness, whether this does not present the opportunity without the need for another. At all events, as far as the Government are concerned, they intend to treat this as giving the necessary authority for ratifying the Treaty. I want to refer to one other point. The interests in the Turkish Petroleum Company are 25 per cent. Anglo-Persian, 25 per cent. Royal Dutch-Shell, 25 per cent. French, and 25 per cent. American promised. There are no Italian interests at present.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There is a much more important matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question of the position of this Rider added by the Constituent Assembly and also what our position, will be if we accept

        1965
        the Rider, which says we have to incorporate Mosul within the boundaries of Iraq, if the League of Nations, to which this matter has been referred, decide against them that Mosul shall go to the Turk? What is the position of the Government then? We really do not know the situation at all as regards that point.
        Mr. THOMAS: In answer to a question put by my hon. and gallant Friend a few weeks ago, I made it perfectly clear that the Government were not bound by the Rider, and he now follows that up by saying: What will the Government do if the League of Nations decide against us? Our answer to the League of Nations is that we have discharged our mandate. That is clear, as far as we are concerned. I do not anticipate difficulties with the League, but I do anticipate difficulties if this matter be held up, because, if my suggestion be not given effect to, that would he interpreted by all the enemies, both of the Treaty and of this country, as expressing the House of Commons opposition to it. It will not he correct, it will not he true, for any such interpretation to be made, and that is the reason why I ask the Committee clearly to understand that the passing of this Vote will be accepted by the Government as giving them the necessary authority to ratify.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the King of Iraq accept this Rider? Does he consider himself bound by it? Here we have a Constituent Assembly adding a Rider, and my right hon. Friend says he does not accept the Rider. If Mosul is given, not to Iraq, as I suggest might well happen, the Constituent Assembly of Iraq will say, "That is all right, we have no obligation under the Treaty." I say that that is a difficult position, and it has not been clarified by the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. T. JOHNSTON: With what was stated by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) at the conclusion of his speech about the purpose for which the British Empire interferes with small nationalities, I have no quarrel. I have no quarrel with the ideal which the sentence expressed. But some of my friends and I would like very much if, in a Debate of this kind, we could have
        1966
        the real truth told us as to why the British Government should spend almost £100,000,000 in such a State as Iraq. What are we there for? The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw Milne), who spoke earlier, specifically denied that there was any question of oil ownership or oil exploitation in our interference with Iraq at all. I hold in my hand a cutting from a paper called the "Financial Times," which I understand is edited by a Gentleman who sits on the Front Opposition Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is dated 4th June, 1924, and this article stretches, across two columns with a headline, and is stated to be written "by one who was present throughout the Lausanne Conference and has studied the whole question of post-War Turkey, Mesopotamia and Mosul." This is what he says:
        "There is at the present time a tendency to ridicule, the stress which has been laid on oil in the various conferences and negotiations since the Armistice .… The Mosul oilfield stands in a unique position, in that it has always been vested with a political significance, and the Great Powers have for nearly 20 years been struggling for a preponderating influence in its development. It is no secret that considerations of its future have played a decisive role in more than one international Conference."
        Further, he says—and I ask attention to this—
        "No more courageous fight for the retention of Mosul could have been made than by Lord Curzon at the first Lausanne Conference, and it will be remembered that he was ready to see the Conference break down rather than give way."
        That was the important subject at the Lausanne Conference. Further, he says that in a letter written from Lord Curzon to the United States Ambassador in London, dated 28th February, 1921, the following paragraph occurs:
        "The Civil List in 1906, considering the agreement with the Anatolean Company at an end, entered into negotiations with a British group with a. view to the development of the oilfields. These negotiations, which had the full support of His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, continued during the year 1907; they were suspended during the political crisis which broke out in 1908.… These negotiations, in which the British and German Governments took an active interest, terminated in the early part of 1914 when an agreement was reached for the fusion of the interests of the original Turkish Petroleum Company, and of the original British group in the new Turkish Petroleum Company. This agreement was signed not only by the

        1967
        parties immediately interested, but also on behalf of the British and German Governments respectively."
        It is no earthly use saying that oil has not entered into this question in face of that statement. The trail of oil is all over it. The article goes on:
        "Unfortunately the position of the Turkish Petroleum Company is not as strong as would appear from this statement, because the consideration which Turkey was to have received never materialised."
        Poor Turkey never got the consideration. but the British Government backing the Petroleum Company insist upon the British Company having its share of oil in Mosul, and all the millions, probably nearly £100,000,000, that this company has spent since the Armistice in bolstering up these concessionaires and their interests in Mosul ought to he frankly explained to the Committee. We should not have these financial arrangements hidden from the people of this country under the guise of phrases about our going out to Mesopotamia to do good to the poor Arabs.
        Mr. MILNE: There is nothing in what the hon. Member has road in the least incompatible with my statement that we did not go to Mesopotamia in connection with oil at all. As to the fact that he has read extracts pointing out that concessionaires in different countries have tried to work the oilfields, I have not any doubt about that, and I hope that British enterprise will go on doing that sort of thing. If the statement is correct that this Government has been spending money in backing up concessionaires and that this £100,000,000 has gone in that way, I trust, with the hon. Member, that the right hon. Gentleman will give him the figures, because there are no figures.
        Mr. JOHNSTON: I have been reading out for the last 10 minutes, and I have been showing that for nearly 20 years—
        Mr. MILNE: That was before we went to Mesopotamia.
        Mr. JOHNSTON: Of course, it was before we went to Mesopotamia with an Army, but the British Government through the British Ambassador at Constantinople—it is specifically stated here—have been interfering in Turkish affairs in order to bolster up this particular financial syndicate. If after the Armistice
        1968
        we spent millions—I do not know how many—probably anything up to one hundred millions—on our Army, and on our Diplomatic Service, well—
        Earl WINTERTON: This is really a very important matter, and I should like to put a question. In a charge of this kind we ought to know quite what is meant. Is the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that successive British Governments, including his own, have, for a financial consideration, gone to Mesopotamia in order to get oil for certain financial groups, or what is the suggestion?
        Mr. JOHNSTON: That is a perfectly reasonable question. I never said that members of any Government have taken any financial consideration. I never hinted at it. I have never accused anybody, and I am surprised that the Noble Lord should endeavour to drag a red herring of that kind into the discussion.
        Earl WINTERTON: I am merely endeavouring to arrive at the truth. I honestly do not understand what is the accusation—how it is suggested this money has been spent, and what has gene on between the financial groups to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and successive British Governments.
        Mr. JOHNSTON: I wish I knew that. What I submit I have proved is the statement—and that hon. Members on the opposite side have so far not disputed it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, hon. Members hare not done it so far. If they are so prepared, let them get up, and do it. I have quoted from the official report sent by Lord Curzon to the American Ambassador in London, and nobody has disputed that. One statement was that
        "We have been interested in oil. British Governments have been interested in oil, and the time and attention of the British Foreign Secretary at the Lausanne Conference and elsewhere has been actively taken up in the furtherance of oil interests."
        I think I have proved it. Let me go further. The writer of this article says:
        "The only thing definitely concluded by the 1914 negotiations was that the financial groups interested, agreed upon the division of the Turkish Petroleum. Company's shares and the basis of financial participation in exploiting the concesson when obtained."

        1969
        But they were never obtained and nothing ever came of the arrangement, because the consideration which was to he paid to the Turkish Government as a matter of fact, was never paid. Then says the article:
        "The great fight made by Lord Curzon"—
        Note, "The great fight made by Lord Curzon—
        "to secure the oil concessions was beset with difficulties which have not been overcome. With the death of Abdul Hamid in 1915 the rights of his property, including the free concession of the oil of Mosul and Bagdad passed to his heirs. Early in 1922 the rights to Abdul Hamid's properties and concession were acquired by an American company, and it appears that the control of this company is being acquired by British interests."
        Nothing could be more specific and more definite than this statement of fact or alleged statement of facts, made in a financial paper published in the City of London, a paper of high standing and an article never disputed, never denied, so far as I know, by any Member of this House. If any hon. Member opposite is prepared to deny that Lord Curzon spent a considerable portion of his time at Lausanne lighting on behalf of oil interests, alleged to be British national oil interests, now is the time for him to get up and deny it.
        Mr. MILNE: We do not believe it.
        Mr. JOHNSTON: Very well, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, if he does not believe it, that he should forthwith write to the "Financial Times" denying this statement and giving reasons for his denial.
        Mr. HARNEY: Lord Curzon has never repudiated it!
        Mr. JOHNSTON: Hon. Gentlemen who wave their hands in objection to what I am saying apparently know nothing about it. What I am saying on behalf of some hon. Members of this House is that when we come to Debates of this kind, when we are asked to vote public money foe which the people of this country are paying taxes, we are entitled to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I have no quarrel with the Noble Lord opposite as to what political officers have done in Mesopotamia. I believe probably that what he said was perfectly true, that we have done a considerable
        1970
        amount of good to the Arab people, but I do not want to be fobbed off with stuff of that kind. I want to know on whose behalf we are spending or have spent £100,000,000. I do not believe we went into Iraq and spent £100,000,000 for our health or to do good to the Arabs. I do not believe it.
        Earl WINTERTON: This is a matter which ought to be put right. I am a great admirer of the sincerity of the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston), and I ask him to accept what I say with a like sincerity. I do not believe for one moment that we spent £100,000,000 in the interests of British oil-producing companies. I hope he will accept that statement with the same frankness and in the same sincerity for which we give hon. Members opposite credit. Equally, I certainly resent the suggestion that the British Government spent this money for that purpose.
        Mr. JOHNSTON: What I suggest ought to be done then is that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are interested in financial affairs in the City of London and who run financial papers in London—papers which do not circulate frequently among Members on this side of the House, but circulate, presumably, among the classes represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by hon. Members below the Gangway, should take action accordingly. These financial papers make specific charges of this kind. In this article they give what purports to be actual quotations from Government documents, from documents sent by Lord Curzon to the American Ambassador in London. If these things are not true, why are they not denied in the columns of the paper which makes them? Why remain for a month or six weeks after they are made, and then have them denied in airy fashion by hon. Members opposite and by the noble Lord on the Front Bench who seeks to controvert those charges by suggesting that I have attacked a, British Government as being personally interested. I do not blame these men. I never did. I am sure nobody ever did, but what I say is that the money spent in Iraq was not spent in order to make the desert blossom like the rose. It was not spent to benefit the Arab population. It was spent there in the interests of financial groups. I suggest that before this Debate finishes hon. Gentlemen who can speak with

        1971
        authority on the subject should get up and give us a specific answer to these charges in the "Financial Times."
        Mr. GREENE: I have listened to some hon. Members of this House who are in favour of withdrawing from Iraq. So far I have not heard a single cogent reason for such withdrawal. I prefer reasons which are cogent. One reason is that we are spending the taxpayers' money there. Another reason, so far as I can see, is that this country may possibly benefit from our occupation of that country. Personally, I have no objection to this country benefiting at all, providing it does not do it at the expense of other people. I like to see my country benefiting if it does it in such a manner that the people of the mandated countries benefit also.
        In a few words, I propose, having considerable knowledge of so called "dry-farming" and sheep-raising, and having been three years in Iraq, to show how this country may benefit directly and indirectly, and how the Arabs themselves may benefit directly by our remaining in the country sufficiently long to enable a stable Government to be set on its feet, to be able to protect itself, and look after the other interests that may be there. That country, as is well known, was at one time the granary of the world. It was at that time the most prosperous country in the world. I see absolutely no reason why it should not become so again. I think it can become so under a stable Government of Arabs themselves, and I also feel certain it never will become so if it is given back to the Turks. To begin with, in that country there is no limit to the possibilities of the growing of cereals, cotton, mutton, and wool, and this at extremely cheap rates, which would bring wealth to the country, and which would benefit the people of this country, because it would reduce the prices of those commodities.
        Furthermore, it would give employment in that country and also in this country by the demand for the material and machinery necessary for the purposes of irrigation. Hon. Members opposite might feel rather shy of this course considering the cost and that British financiers might place money there and make a profit. I should like to see them do it, because such income would he drawn to this country, and spent in this
        1972
        country, would benefit also the Exchequer, and give employment in this country. If we leave that country at the present time as some hon. Members would have us do, it will still remain a desert, will simply lie waste, whereas if we stay there, and with our help that country is enabled to settle down, and perhaps a certain amount of our capital placed there, cereal growing can be made a very great industry and at extraordinarily little cost.
        It may not be known to many hon. Members opposite that there is no such thing as the Valley of the Tigris. The Tigris itself is actually higher than the surrounding country as the river overflows every year and deposits silt and mud on the area close to the. river, so naturally the ground on either side of the river is higher than it is further away. The result is that irrigation can be carried out very cheaply. You have only to raise the water to the top of the bank and gravitation takes it to the required spot. There is another matter which makes farming very cheap. You only need to plough one and a half inches deep and plough up the silt deposit. This soil is extremely rich and full of nitrogen, and you have only to "tickle the surface and it smiles a crop." Another important matter is the extraordinary cheapness of transport in that country. If you have land some distance up the Tigris, or the tributaries of the Tigris, you can grow timber there, and, when you want to send your produce down the river, you make rafts and convey the produce at practically en cost except that of the man on the raft, and even the raft can be sold when it arrives at its destination at a high price.
        The farming of cereals is not the only thing. There is some wonderful land in the surrounding country near Mosul. It is a most perfect grass country, and, from my knowledge of land in Australia and the growing of merinos, I should say this land would he a perfect merino country. If one could be certain that the Government in Iraq was going to be made a suitable Government it would be worth while to import merino rams. In six years' time you could very much improve the flocks, and a new industry could be started, not only for the benefit of the people of Iraq, but also for the benefit of the people of this country. Of

        1973
        course, that can never be brought about while there is all this talk about leaving the country to fend for itself when it is not in a position to govern itself.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have only four more years.
        Mr. GREENE: Well, that is better than nothing, and if we stay on we shall be. able to give a guarantee of some kind in that country. I have often spoken to hon. Members privately oh this subject, and I have heard their objections. I have heard them say that we shall have to have aeroplanes to defend the country against the Kurds, who will come along and drive off the sheep. May I point out that sheep travel about six miles a day, and consequently you can imagine they would not get very far away before their whereabouts would be discovered and the raiders would have to go off without their sheep. I hope the Committee will not think I have wandered from the point, but I feel most strongly that unless we stand by the Government of Iraq and protect it and put it on its feet, Iraq will go back to a condition even worse than it is in at the present time, and we shall lose the benefits in this country that we ought to have, and the people in Iraq will lose the benefits they ought to have. If the Turks come back, there will be the same misgovernment. as in past years. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Milne) said that the Turkish population in Mosul represented about 60 per cent., but I am astonished to hear that statement, because I was under the impression that it was only between 5 and 10 per cent. At any rate, I know that there is a very large non-Turkish population there, consisting of Christians, Armenians, Chaldeans, Jews, Assyrians and Kurds, and I know from personal contact with them that not one of them would like to see the Turks back again. There are certain people who have been on good terms with the Turks who, upon religious grounds, might want to see them back again, but the moment they got them back they would wish they had never come there. In conclusion, I merely want to say that Turkish rule means destruction, and that for every acre given back to the Turk there will be one acre taken from progress, and one acre given to chaos.
        Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: I do not think I can add anything to the very interesting account of the possibilities of
        1974
        Iraq which has been given to the Committee by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I listened with great surprise to the speech delivered by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. Johnston), and I quite fail to see the point of his speech. It is not a fact that we went into Iraq and spent £100,000,000 in order to protect the oil interests there. As a matter of fact, no oil has been found there yet, and we do not know whether any will be found or not. I only hope that the British companies will find oil there. and he able to make something out of it. The whole question of Iraq is a very difficult one, and there is not the slightest doubt that if we go out of that country the Turks will come in, and our interest is to support the Arab Government and try to prevent the Turks coming in. Whether the present Government in Iraq will stand or not we cannot say. I do not think that there is a single tribe out there or Arab chief who would admit the over-lordship of any other tribe or chief, and all the chiefs and tribes of Iraq are equally averse to the over-lordship of any outside chief or tribe. To give our support to the Arab Government, is the only hope that it will succeed.
        With regard to Mosul, I think we ought to support the Assyrians and the Chaldeans who, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said, were the backbone of the country. They supported us all through the War and stood by us, and they form the best part of the Iraq levies at the present time. Therefore, I hope Mosul will be held and protected, and that the people there will not come under the Turkish rule again in any possible way. The question of Transjordania, was raised by an hon. Member opposite (Colonel T. Williams). I quite agree with what has been said about the inhabitants of Palestine and Transjordania, but I cannot agree that it is practical to have in such a small country one rule on one side of the River Jordan and another rule on the other side—the whole country should be under one rule. I quite agree that the Russians under the name of the Zionists are a danger to the country. I hope they time will come when we shall see both Transjordania. and Palestine Under one rule.
        Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. T. John

        1975
        ston) has made a very serious indictment in regard to our policy in Iraq on the ground that it has been dictated by financial interests. I am not concerned at all about the oil interests, but the point I am interested in is in regard to what is to become of the 200,000 Christians in Mosul. Honestly, my interest is mainly concentrated on that point. These Christians have fled to Mosul. They have stood by us in the War, and have suffered butchery at the hands of one of our enemies in the War. It seems to me that now two things are inevitable. One is that we shall retain possession of Mosul and give the protection of the British Government to these Christians. The other is that if the necessity should compel it, we may have to abandon Mosul, and in that case I hope the Government will pledge themselves to take the necessary remedies to get these people away from the bayonets of the Turks. That is all I want to ask, and if the Prime Minister will reply to these questions I shall be satisfied.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: want to make my last protest on this question in the presence of the Prime Minister. It is not quite fair to the Committee to tell us that this is our only opportunity of approving the ratification of this Treaty with the Kingdom of Iraq. This is a Supply Vote asked for by members of the Opposition, and we were not told that this was going to be our only opportunity for discussing this subject. I do not think any Member on these benches was aware that this would be our last and only opportunity, and that after this a mandate would be given to the Colonial Secretary to ratify this Treaty. The Colonial Secretary has not been able to tell us that our commitments will be limited even to four years. All the speeches from the other side talking about this infant Arab State and the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene), who spoke of the wonderful sheep rearing and corn growing possibilities of Iraq. show that. we shall have to keep propping up this Kingdom in Mesopotamia.
        7.0 P. M.
        The matter is highly unsatisfactory, not only from the point of view of the Arabs, but from the point of view of that much harassed person, the British taxpayer, who is asked to vote over £5,000,000 this year
        1976
        partly as the result of the mistakes made by previous Governments. The Labour Government which came in, pledged to wind up those commitments and to drop those policies, is continuing the self-same policy, and the Colonial Secretary is unable even to put a four years' limit upon it. We are hard put to it for money in every direction. Social reform is held up, widows' pensions and housing are being held up by money stringency in this country, and yet we are cheerfully committing ourselves, and that is all the right hon. Gentleman can hold out to us. It is highly unsatisfactory, and I move the reduction as a protest. I make this protest now. I know it is no good dividing the Committee, because there is an unholy alliance between the Conservative benches and the Labour party.
        I must say one word with regard to the remarks of my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. O'Connor). I agree with him about the position of the Christians, but, at the same time, we ourselves referred this question to the League of Nations. If they decide against us, what is going to happen to these 200,000 people? In the event of the case being against us, I do not see how we can help them in a matter that has been already dealt with by the League of Nations. Unless we are going to abide by the decision, it would be fatal to us. We had an opportunity of getting out of that country by rejecting the Treaty, but the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, decreed otherwise. We lost. the opportunity of getting honourably out of the country. We have the position now that one member of the Sheriffian family can rule over one Arab State, but another member of the same family, not certainly inferior in ability, is not to be allowed to manage his own house and rule over another State. I do not make this protest against Arab nationalism. We owe much to the Arab, and there is a great future for the Arab race, which lies in its own hand. It is batter to let them work out their own salvation by putting responsibilities upon them, and I object strongly to the policy of continuing the tutelage, the mandate, call it what you will, over Iraq at this. heavy expense, which we certainly cannot afford in the state of our finances, in view of the danger of future hostilities, whereby we might be involved in the case of war.
        Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,918,900, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
        Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS II.

      COLONIAL OFFICE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £113,031, 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 the Colonies."—[Note: £60,000 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. AMERY: The particular subject to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee is that of the representation of the Dominions in the foreign policy of the British Empire. I do not propose to revert again to the particular ease of the representation of the Dominions at Lausanne. It was very fully discussed the other day. But I should like to take, as my starting point, the very important statement of policy which the Prime Minister made on that occasion. He said, on that occasion, that he stood by the Resolution of the last Imperial Conference with regard to the negotiation and ratification of Treaties, and added that that Resolution
      "so far as I am concerned, must be put into operation."
      The leading sentence of that resolution is as follows:
      "Before negotiations are opened with the intention of concluding a treaty, steps should be taken to ensure to any of the other Governments of the Empire likely to be interested are informed, so that, if any such Government considers that its interests would be affected, it may have an opportunity of expressing its views, or, when its interests are intimately involved of participating in the negotiations."
      The Prime Minister very rightly added that that Resolution by no means covers the whole ground and requires to be supplemented and interpreted, and he added that, in his opinion,
      "the time has come when we have to consider, in view of the present circumstances, what machinery is required to be created."
      He went on to say that he thought that, without much delay, if they were going to enter into any further negotiations that would commit either the honour or
      1978
      the resources of the. Empire, these Resolutions
      "should be made the subject of a very careful inquiry by constitutional representatives of the Dominions as well as ourselves—representatives of the Dominions, constitutional authorities, men who have had experience of government and experience of constitutional working, sitting with us a sort of specialised sub-committee or committees of the Imperial Conference that will explore with the authorities here—with all our experience of the difficulties of conducting foreign affairs—to see if we cannot make some of these provisions a little more definite than they are, so as to remove all misunderstanding's."
      He finally added:
      "Before anything is done of a definite character I shall communicate these ideas to the Home in a more definite form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June. 1924; col. 1650, Vol. 174.]
      A little later, on 10th July, the Colonial Secretary was asked how far the negotiations in this matter had gone and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that communications were proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the Dominion Governments as to the possibility of improving the present system of consultation on matters of foreign policy and general Imperial interest. He added that
      "the correspondence, however, has not reached a stage where any detailed statement could usefully he made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1924; col. 2492, Vol. 175.]
      My primary object in rising is to inquire from the right hon. Gentleman whether it is now possible to add anything to that reply either as to the arrangements for the special meetings or as to the line of policy which His Majesty's Government will adopt at these meetings, because the House will shortly adjourn, and it may be that those meetings will take place before the House meets again. It is, therefore, not in any mood of criticism, but rather of question that I have risen to bring this matter before the Committee. If I add anything at all it will be more in the way of suggestion and elucidation of the general principles, which, I believe, in the opinion of every section of the House, ought to guide us than to attempt to lay down anything approaching a clear-cut policy on this question. The Resolution to which the Prime Minister referred did not, of course, contain anything new. It was in substance the same as the Resolution, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon

      1979
      Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will remember, at the 1917 Conference, which laid down "the right of the Dominions as autonomous nations of the Imperial Commonwealth to have an adequate voice in foreign policy" and went on to indicate "the need for effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern." That Resolution, which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will agree, represents a clear constitutional policy, both Sir Robert. Borden and General Smuts played an important part in framing. It is the view that has been consistently taken by the Dominions ever since. I have this afternoon been refreshing my memory of the recent debates in the Dominion Parliaments. I noticed in a recent debate, I think on 6th June, that the-Prime Minister of Canada described the nececssity which he saw for "consultation and co-operation between the Dominions and the Mother Country as equal units within the Empire.' The leader of the Opposition, Mr. Meighen, said very much the same thing. I may quote a sentence from him. He said he believed it made for world peace that they should exert their united force towards such world policies as made for the peace of all. They could not hold the future on the basis of autonomy alone. I quote one sentence from Mr. Bruce, Prime Minister of Australia, who, referring to the fact that the Dominions were plunged into a great war without consultation, said they were "determined not to remain in a position in which they might be involved in another war without full knowledge of the circumstances that brought it on." He added that the Empire was "one and indivisible," and, in the event of hostilities arising, as the result of misguided British foreign policy, the Dominions could not, in fact, stand aside. It was clear from his speech that there is only one possible solution, and it is that the Dominions while maintaining their full equality of status with the Mother Country should work in complete unity with us as regards the conduct of foreign policy.
      May I suggest, difficult though it be to fulfil those conditions, that it is not impossible. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will agree that there have been periods
      1980
      during which those conditions were absolutely fulfilled. During the Imperial Conferences and War Cabinets in 1917 and 1918, the foreign policy that was carried out by the Foreign Secretary was not the foreign policy of British Government alone but of all the Governments of the Empire, meeting on terms of absolute equality, and arriving at unanimous conclusions. That was of immense importance in shaping the general policy with which we went to Paris. The same thing, of course, took place again at subsequent Imperial Conferences. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that one of the most important landmarks in the policy of the British Empire were those discussions which took place at the Imperial Conference in 1921 with regard to our relations both with Japan and the United States. It was those discussions which formed the whole basis on which the Washington Conference afterwards proceeded. I think my right hon. Friend behind me will agree that the same was true of the Imperial Conference last autumn. While it was in session there was a united foreign policy for the Empire, and in so far as a foreign policy could be laid down during a few weeks for subsequent months and years, we were able to lay down the outlines of a united Empire policy. If that has been achieved between ourselves at Imperial meetings, it has also been achieved with regard to the outside world. When the Dominions went to Paris we succeeded in achieving the fulfilment of these conditions. The status of the Dominions was recognised, not only among ourselves, but by the outside world, as being Equal to that of other independent nations—a very important concession from the point of view of national pride. They were admitted to the Conference or the same terms as all the other smaller nations represented. They were admitted to the League of Nations as separate independent members.
      That was a very important matter, but I suggest to the Committee that, in fact, it was far less important than that real equality which they secured as members of the British Empire delegation which at Paris took the place of the Imperial War Cabinet. While the smaller nations with which they met equally were hanging round the outskirts the Conference, picking up such information as they could, and having their interests considered from time to time, the British Dominions

      1981
      were essentially a part of one of the great deciding Powers. No decision was taken of any importance by the Big Five, or the Big Three, which was not fully discussed with the British Empire Delegation beforehand, and which did not represent the decision of all the nations of the Empire. The same general course was pursued with most satisfactory results at the Washington Conference. The same course has also been pursued at the meetings of the League of Nations. The essential thing, in one way or another, consistent with the effective carrying out of our foreign policy, is that the principle underlying these precedents should be carried right through in the whole action of the Foreign Office.
      It may be that, looking back upon what occurred at Lausanne, either the Dominions or ourselves should have taken a more definite line in regard to essential principles at the moment these negotiations were opened. I will not go over this ground again. I should, however, like to say a word about the Conference sitting at this moment. It was a little unfortunate that, in connection with his Conference, it was only at the last moment that a kind of make-shift arrangement was arrived at. I say make-shift arrangement advisedly, for my right hon. Friend in answering a question the other day practically admitted that it was a make-shift arrangement and expressed the hope that it would not be quoted as a precedent. That arrangement is unsatisfactory for the reason that it is an arrangement under which the Dominions sitting on a panel have full representation in rotation and on other occasions are only present as spectators. I am not going to object to the principle of the panel as such. There may be occasions when it will be convenient for the British Empire to be represented on the panel system, but in adopting the panel system for the Dominions only you are violating the principle of equality of status between the nations of the Empire. If one nation, the United Kingdom, is represented there continuously and of right and the Dominions only have partial representation through the panel the principle of equality of status is violated, but if all are represented on the panel system then the essential principle is preserved. By whatever means this problem is to be solved, whether on the basis of the full
      1982
      separate representation of all the Dominions or on other occasions by Empire representatives nominated by and acting for a British Empire delegation, it is essential that foreign Powers should fully recognise the position. In these matters I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that we are not more tender in regard to the susceptibilities of foreign Powers than with regard to the susceptibilities of the Powers which make up the British Empire. Take the case of a Power like Belgium. The great Dominions took their part in the War no less than Belgium did. They suffered casualties equally with Belgium, they made their sacrifices, and they are no less entitled, if they wish it, to be represented than Belgium. We, at any rate, ought to make it clear to the rest of the world that it must take the British Empire as it finds it and that we cannot diminish the status of our own Dominions in order merely to meet the convenience of other Powers.
      2.0 A.M.
      Whatever the position with regard to conferences, I should like to say that it is not conferences that matter so much as the period in between them. The Prime Minister said the other day, with regard to Lausanne, that it was only the sixth or seventh chapter of a long history. That is equally true of the present Conference. The question of reparations, has been discussed practically without intermission ever since the Treaty of Versailles. It is equally true of all other problems of foreign policy, that you cannot give effective representation to the Dominions at Imperial or foreign Conferences unless they can secure some effective say continuously during the intervals between those great landmarks at which are registered the decisions of the Powers. There are one or two general principles that occur to me as calculated at least, in the long run, to lead to a real solution of the problem. That solution can best be found, I suggest, in somehow or other enabling the principle of the British Empire delegation, which has worked so well at so many Conferences, to be made permanent in order to secure for the Dominions a continuous say in foreign policy. Short of that, I believe it would be a great help if each of them had its own special agent, or a special representative to find out what the situation is and to convey it to their own Governments under their direct instruction. I

      1983
      have seen, from the point of view of the Colonial Office, how inevitably colourless are the general circulars in which facts are conveyed to the Dominions how belated they often are, and how sensitive the Dominions are of criticising these despatches. If the Dominions had their own men they could rebuke them for sending inadequate messages, or for sending them too late; they could tell them to go to the Foreign Office again and again in order to get information, and in that way each Dominion would be able to have a much more effective say. There is another suggestion which has been made, I see, in the Australian Parliament, and which Mr. Bruce has spoken of with great favour. It is the suggestion of substituting for the present secretariat between conferences some sort of inter-Dominion secretariat, not dependent on any British department, but like the Imperial War Graves Commission responsible to all the Governments.
      The really important thing, however, is that the Foreign Office should itself take the initiative in transforming the habits and usages dating from the time when it had the sole direction of foreign policy and adapting them to the new conditions. It may be extremely inconvenient, no doubt, at times but it is well worth trying if we thereby secure a united Empire policy. I do not think I can put that better than did Lord Parmoor when, speaking in another place, he said it was "unthinkable that the Government of this country should pledge itself to any measure to which the Dominions were opposed. As long as we all worked together as one great people for the good of mankind and the peace of the world, it would be impossible for us to think of adopting any policy of which our Dominions did not approve." That is an admirable principle which should guide the foreign policy of the Empire. We believe that the Empire is an indivisible entity; it consists of nations separate yet equal and of Governments completely independent of each other. But they are all Governments of one Imperial Crown, and the nations which go to make up the Empire, the men and women of the nations, are all subjects of the King, and as such are fellow-citizens. They must be equal citizens. There cannot be different degrees of citizenship within the Empire.
      1984
      if we all admit this—and surely we do—then it cannot be tolerated that we should continue, for a moment longer than can be helped, a state of affairs under which citizens of one part of the Empire, speaking through the Parliament and the Foreign Office of that particular part of the Empire, should exercise an almost exclusive control over matters which effect the vital interests, and it may be even the existence, of other parts of the Empire. I hope I have not trespassed too long on the patience of the Committee in raising this very important subject, which is one wholly outside party controversy, and I hope we may succeed in eliciting a clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman, both as to what he has been able to achieve and as to the line which he hopes to take.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has raised this very important question, and I am glad that the Committee are in a position to examine it without their judgment being prejudiced or complicated by association with any criticism upon either the Government of the day or the late Government. I was under the unfortunate necessity of raising it once before in conjunction with what appeared to be a criticism of the late Government, but the fact that this has nothing whatever to do with criticising anyone does not alter my opinion in the least. I am still of the same opinion. I am very glad that the question has been raised, because I think it is a question of the most vital moment to the unity, the strength, and the continued existence of the Empire. I do not want to put it too high, but anyone who has taken the trouble to acquaint himself with some of the disintegrating elements which may exist in parts of the Empire knows perfectly well that this is a matter of such moment that any mishandling of it may produce very disastrous results upon the Empire's unity.
      As my right hon. Friend has said, the War of 1914 has made a very great difference. Up to that date the Dominions had only, I think, on one occasion given any substantial assistance to the Empire in any of its great complications. That was during the South African War. But the sacrifices they made between 1914 and 1918 were greater—the sacrifices made by two of the Dominions were greater

      1985
      than the sacrifices made by this country in any war since the Napoleonic Wars. If you take the cost in human life, in casualties, and even in expenditure, you will find that the sacrifices made by Canada and by Australia were greater than the sacrifices we made either in the Boer War or in the Russian War in 1854. That, therefore, alters the whole situation. When you get the Dominions putting a million men into the field, when you realise that those million men were probably the decisive factor in what happened, when you put the question to yourself, "What would have happened if they had not been there?" and the answer fills you with dread, then you say to yourself that it is quite impossible that you should not comply, not merely with the letter but with the spirit of the demand of the Dominions that henceforth they should be consulted as to the foreign policy which commits them to these enormous sacrifices.
      What was done in 1917, 1918 and 1919, when they were called practically into the Cabinet, into the Council of the Empire, when they sat on equal terms, when they were just like Members of the British Cabinet, when they sat on its Committees, when they presided over some of its Committees—that was a very great constitutional change. It was a greater constitutional change than we quite apprehended, so much so that it has been difficult to get the Departments quite to accept the full meaning of that change, and they are always going—not deliberately; I am not criticising them—they are instinctively, from tradition, from the habit of generations, constantly falling back upon the old attitude of this country. They have not quite realised that a new chapter in the British Constitution was written by the War of 1914–18, and certainly a new chapter in the Constitution of the British Empire. It has been put on a totally different footing. The Dominions were consulted, not by despatches, but by the gathering of their leaders to the Central Council Chamber of Empire.
      I do not want to go back to Lausanne, because, as far as I am concerned, I have had my say on the subject, and I would rather not criticise what has recently happened. I think it is a little unfortunate, but the time has not come for discussing that. I do think, however, that it is very important, when one considers some of the
      1986
      difficulties that our well-wishers in the Dominions have in always carrying the whole of their public opinion along with them on Imperial issues, that we should be exceedingly careful not to give the slightest offence, that we should be exceedingly cautious not to give any handle to those who are ready to make mischief in different parts of the Empire. It is difficult to discuss these matters without saying something that might have a mischievous effect, but the Committee will realise that the kith-and-kin argument does not cover millions of very loyal subjects of the King, even in the Dominions. They have been loyal, and I have no doubt at all that they would stand by the Flag and the Empire whenever it was in peril, but there are people who may make appeals to them in a hostile sense, and it is important that we should avoid any occasion that will give strength to hostile appeals to sentiment which is fermenting sometimes in different parts of the Empire. Therefore, we ought to do everything in our power to get all classes, all races, all languages, all religions inside the Empire and federate them, and make them feel that it is just as much their Empire as if is our Empire.
      That is of the most vital importance, and one can see the importance of it when one reads between the lines of some of the discussions which have taken place in the Canadian Parliament in the course of the present year. Some of the incidents have been unpleasant, and I am certainly not criticising the Prime Minister of Canada. He has very great difficulties, and he has had to hear that sentiment in mind. My right hon. Friend suggests some kind of machinery, but I am not sure that it is a question of machinery. He referred to a very important discussion that took place in the Imperial Conference in 1921. I am not quite sure whether it has been published or not, but I think I am right in saying that, although in 1917 there was rather a desire for a machine, for an organisation, for almost a, written Constitution that would make consultation possible, by 1921 the Dominions had unanimously gone back upon that, and I think rightly. Our very best friends were those who opposed it. They felt that it was out of keeping with the spirit of the British Constitution, which has grown from precedent to precedent, which has been built up out of ex-

      1987
      perience, and they were opposed to anything in the nature of a machine for consultation.
      I think that is right. The methods ought to be adapted to the conditions of the time. You may, for instance, have a sudden crisis, and it is quite clear that no machine could be brought into operation then. The one great difficulty, of course, is distance, and until you are able by scientific means to shorten the distance and minimise that difficulty, it will always remain. You may have a crisis, as in 1914. There was no time for an Imperial Conference in August, 1914. You have, therefore, to consider the method and adapt it to the conditions of the moment. All that you could have done then was to send cablegrams across, but that is not always possible. It may lead to misunderstanding, because it is very difficult, when you send a cablegram of that kind across, to prevent something from leaking out which may imperil the whole situation here in Europe. That is the difficulty, but the Dominions understand that, and I am sure that what they want to feel is that, when we come to settle the general direction of the policy of the Empire, they shall be called in.
      My right hon. Friend referred to the prolonged discussions that we had in 1921 before we decided upon our attitude towards the Japanese Alliance. That, naturally, was a matter of vital interest to certainly three of the Dominions—to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It was discussed at very great length, and the decision we came to was arrived at after very prolonged examination of the whole problem. But, more than that, that was a discussion which took place before the Disarmament Conference in Washington, and the policy of the Empire with regard to naval disarmament was a policy which was decided upon after discussion with the Dominions. That makes a very great difference. Take our attitude towards France. The question of security was discussed; the question of a pact was discussed; all these issues have been discussed. But when you get a question like the Dawes Report, it is very difficult, I realise, to decide upon the best method of discussing a question of that kind; but it is vital that they should be consulted. They have even a pecuniary interest in
      1988
      the decision; but, apart from that, they have the interest that they made great sacrifices to establish that Treaty. They are signatories to the Treaty. The Treaty was arrived at after they had been taken into full consultation. Therefore, they ought to be consulted.
      There are many ways in which they could be consulted, and now is not the time for discussing the question of consultation before this Conference. The Conference is sitting. I agree, however, with my right hon. Friend that there were rather unfortunate incidents, and what is vital is that they should feel that whatever policy we decide upon is a policy in regard to which we are taking them into our councils in so far as geographical conditions will permit, that they should feel that we are not deciding for them, that the old tradition by which the British Government and the British Foreign Office—or, as they put it, Downing Street—that the old policy of Downing Street deciding for the whole of the Dominions, and committing them to a policy which loyalty demands-that they should support when it is challenged by anyone, is gone, and is gone for ever. Like my right hon. Friend, I do not believe that there is a more important fact for civilisation at the present moment than the British Empire. It is essentially an Empire of liberty, it is an Empire of right, it is an Empire of peace. Those are the three appeals which will rally the Dominions, and that that Empire should be strong, that it should grow in strength, in unity, in power and in might is essential in the highest interests of humanity.
      Mr. THOMAS: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that too much importance cannot be attached to this question. I will mention two incidents. When we came into office, we immediately found ourselves at cross purposes with one of our Dominions with regard to the Treaty of Lausanne. The late Government had decided on a certain policy. There we found ourselves immediately with one of our Dominions, not only in private correspondence but openly in Parliament, denouncing what the right hon. Gentleman calls Downing Street methods. We were disturbed at that, and we said at once if possible we must avoid it, not because we are anxious to close anything up which has been done, but the very

      1989
      fact that in the Canadian Parliament the Prime Minister can actually discuss three alternatives, one of them being separation, is certainly disturbing. But it ought to convince all Members in all parties in this House at least that it is a subject which must be tackled not only seriously, but entirely free from party of any sort or kind.
      Does not this discussion prove that on the Empire question all parties not only can unite, but are equally devoted, and it is a good thing. Therefore, I come right away to the difficulties. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the Dominions gained this particular status during the War. You discussed it in 1917 fully and frankly, because the Dominions said, rightly. "when we are called upon, as we are called upon to-day"—in that case they did it voluntarily—"to come to the aid of the Mother Country, with all the risks, all the sacrifices of blood and treasure that we poured out, we at least not only are entitled to be consulted, but you have no right to commit us unless we are consulted in advance." That surely was the meaning of the 1917 decision. It was followed by the right hon. Gentleman's effort at Versailles to establish, for the first time in international affairs, a definite place and status for our Dominions. Lausanne followed. Then we came in, and found this difficulty. As evidence of our anxiety I cannot do better than quote from a message I sent to the Dominions by the Prime Minister on 23rd June of this year, because I think it not only expresses the Government view, but the view of the House of Commons as a whole.
      "You will probably have seen from Pres, reports of recent speeches of Secretary of State for the Colonies and myself in Parliament that we are concerned as to adequacy of present system of consultation with other self-governing parts of the Empire on matters of foreign policy and general Imperial interest. We fully accept principle of necessity for effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine. We also realise the action to be taken as result of consultation, whether at or between Imperial conferences, must be subject to constitutional requirements of each country. But we feel as result of our experience since taking office that system in practice has two main deficiencies. First, it renders immediate action extremely difficult, more especially between conferences, on occasions when such
      1990
      action is imperatively needed, particularly in the sphere of foreign policy. Secondly, when matters under discussion are subjects of political controversy, economic or otherwise, conclusions reached at and between Imperial Conferences are likely to be reversed through changes of Government. Such a state of affairs leads inevitably to ineffectiveness. It also causes disappointment and doubts are thrown on utility of whole Imperial conference system."
      He winds up by saying:
      "We should like your views on these suggestions and if you should be able to make any others, they would be welcome We ourselves are quite of an open mind and are merely exploring the situation with a view to finding a solution."
      There never was a more frank statement from the British Government to the Dominions, because with open hands we say, "Come in and help us find a solution."
      Mr. AMERY: The right hon. Gentleman has given the Committee part of that document. I suppose the whole of it will be published.
      Mr. THOMAS: Yes. The whole of the correspondence will be published. I quoted it to show that immediately we were brought up against this problem we took the only steps open to us. In the interval we are faced with the conclusions of the Dawes Report. As the right hon. Gentleman said, here you have the real difficulty when you get such a situation as faced us in that Report. To bring the Dominions, to give them the same representation as we determined on at Versailles, meant that they themselves were to have six representatives. Anyone with any knowledge of the European difficulty arising out of the Dawes Report would admit that we could not turn that Conference into a mass meeting. If you were going to be businesslike, you had to make it as small as possible, and the difficulty of that was not only our own difficulty but the difficulty of the other Powers represented. We immediately applied ourselves to the difficulty. We cabled to the Dominions, and said to them: "Here is our difficulty. We want you to have the same representation as at Versailles, but there is a difficulty for this Conference. Will you help us?" During the whole of these negotiations we made it perfectly clear to them that on no consideration would they be committed in any way by any representatives of the British Government without full discussion and agreement. They all accepted

      1991
      it readily with the exception of Canada and the Irish Free State. We may as well be perfectly frank in this matter. The strength of the British Empire is that we can be frank with each other without unpleasantness. Mr. Mackenzie King, speaking for his Government, was frank. He said, "No. I believe that accepting anything less than the principle agreed at Versailles is lowering, our status."
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I suggest that it would have been possible to carry out the Versailles precedent without in the least interfering with the business of the Conference. I can quite understand that when you come to discuss details you cannot hare a large body, but, then, whenever there was a plenary session where Rumania, Czechslovakia, and Greece were represented, the Dominions were put on the same basis as those countries and were always present, and at the plenary sessions the Dominions might have been represented without interfering in the least with the smaller Commissions that discussed the details of business.
      Mr. THOMAS: May I recall to the right hon. Gentleman that agreement had been reached as to the number of these various representatives. What we have done is this: Each Dominion sends its representative. When you talk about continuous consultation, no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that it does not always follow that the Dominions themselves agree to their particular representative in London being their representative. That is another difficulty. So do not let us think there is no difficulty. One assumes that the High Commissioners speak for them, whereas, as a matter of fact, in this Conference Canada is represented by a member of her own Senate. What takes place is, that practically every day the whole of the representatives of the Dominions meet the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and myself at Downing Street. We not only tell each other everything that is going on in all our Commissions, but discuss the whole situation, not as British delegates versus Dominions, but as one united delegation having a common interest, in addition to which, at all the plenary sessions the whole of the representatives of the
      1992
      Dominions are present—at every plenary session from the date it opened.
      Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Are they full members?
      Mr. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me. I do not want something to be said abroad in the Dominions which is not absolutely in accordance with exactly what takes place. At every plenary session every representative is present, but at a plenary session there are only four representatives of the Empire, that is two members of the British Government and one representing the Dominions. The others are all present. It is only fair also to say we promised the Dominions, and the Prime Minister read to the conference a clear and definite statement, that this was not to be taken as a precedent or quoted as a precedent for the future, because we desired to make it perfectly clear, not only to the Dominions themselves, but to all foreign Powers, that this system of representation for our Dominions is not satisfactory.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Let me follow what the arrangement is. I understand that each of the Dominions is not represented at the Conference. There are three representatives, and only one is a full delegate of the Dominions.
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. THOMAS: Yes, only one is a full delegate. As my right hon. Friend says, just as in Paris every day, before committing the Dominions to anything there were consultations, so every day here in this Conference there is consultation taking place, and everyone knows as much about the case as the other. That, I repeat, in itself is not satisfactory. That, in itself, is not a solution. That, in itself, is something which must be altered, and we are determined to alter it. That is why we are inviting the Dominions to a Conference, which, we hope, will take place in October of this year. The reason why I cannot lay the Papers at this moment is because the replies are not in. Otherwise, all the evidence tends to show that it will be welcomed, that the Conference will take place, and, so far as the Government are concerned, we want the Conference to take place, so as to explore the whole situation and avoid, if possible, the diffi-

      1993
      culties with which, unfortunately, we have had to deal up to now. I can only say if this discussion helps towards that end, we all welcome it, because this is not censuring anybody, it is not blaming anybody; it is recognising two facts, one of which my right hon. Friend has pointed out. Not only do they deserve well of us, not only are they entitled to this, not only have they made sacrifices, but it is absolutely imperative that their interests must be recognised and looked after.
      Secondly, we want, I may say, outsiders to understand that these domestic difference are not going to weaken us. They are inclined to take advantage of these difficulties. They are inclined to gloat over the kind of discussions that took place a few weeks ago over this Conference. We want them all plainly to understand that they are not going to take advantage of these difficulties, because we are going to remedy them in the future. I am quite sure I express the sentiment of the whole Committee when I say we all welcome the discussion, and the frank way in which the question has been approached, and, so far as the Government are concerned, we believe in sending that message to them, and, in meeting them in the Conference, if it takes place, we will not only be representing ourselves, but all sections of this House in a genuine attempt for Imperial unity on a sound basis.
      Sir J. MARRIOTT: I think I may so far venture to express the opinion of a good many Members on this side of the House if I say we have heard the statement which has just been made by my right hon. Friend with very great satisfaction. At any rate, I would like to say this, that I can imagine nothing better than the whole temper and tone in which the right hon. Gentleman's speech was couched. I think there may be differences of opinion as to how far the precise necessities of this question have been met by the expedient explained to us by the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will probably feel there will be such differences of opinion; in fact, I was going to say he would feel those differences of opinion himself. But if I pass from the details of the arrangement he has laid before the House, to the tone and temper of his speech to-night, I can assure him that I, at any rate, have nothing but the utmost satisfaction. I
      1994
      believe if that temper and tone could be reflected in the reports in the Press to-morrow, his words would be very warmly welcomed, not only throughout the country, but throughout the whole Empire. I think I may say this also. I cannot believe that there could be brought before this House of Commons any subject of greater moment, not merely to the future of this country, but to the future of the world, than the question which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) this evening, and it is a happy circumstance that the question should have been illuminated by the genius, as well as by the unique experience, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
      I think it must be obvious to every Member of this House who has given the least consideration to this problem of Empire partnership, that we have reached in the evolution of the British Commonwealth a stage which is difficult, which is delicate, and which, unless it be handled with the greatest possible tact, may even become critical. May I just remind the Committee, very briefly, how we have reached this stage in what I have called the evolution of the British Commonwealth? In the middle of the last century both parties in this country—there were only two then—had only one object in view in their Colonial policy, and that object was this. The whole of our arrangements were made with a view of preparing the Colonies for immediate self-government and for eventual independence. That was the admitted goal of the Manchester School, as it was called, and it was the admitted goal not only of that school, but of all parties in the State. You have only to look at any of the representative works of that period. Look, for example—I am sure the Colonial Secretary has been immersed in the study of the work—at Sir George Cornewall Lewis's "Essay on the Government of Dependencies," published, I think, in 1841. Look at Mr. Arthur Mills's "Colonial Constitutions," hardly a less representative work than that of Sir George Cornewall Lewis. That was published in 1851. Or look at the Memoirs of Sir Frederick Rogers, afterwards Lord Blachford, who for 10 or more years was Permanent Secretary at the Colonial Office. Look at any of those

      1995
      works, and you will find that they all represent as the goal of our Colonial policy in the middle years of the last century, the idea that we must train the Colonies for immediate self-government and for eventual independence.
      We need not go so far back. I remember that as late as the year 1872, the "Times," in one of its leading articles advised the Canadians—I am quoting from memory, but I think accurately—to take up their freedom, as the days of their apprenticeship were over. I am happy to think that almost from the date of the publication of that article in the "Times" in 1872, there was a very rapid reaction of opinion. I am not going to explore the causes of that reaction, but I would just say that you do not get a great, broad river of sentiment, such as that which flowed in the last. 15 years of the last century, without a very large number of contributory streams. I should weary the Committee if I were to trace those streams to their sources. I am not going to do it, although I would venture very respectfully to advise hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should make that exploration for themselves. It is enough to say that there was in quite the last years of the last century a very strong centripetal movement, which was typified by the operations of the old Imperial Federation League, founded by men like Mr. W. E. Forster, Lord Rosebery and Lord Bryce. That league operated even more powerfully in the Colonies than it did in this country, and the real object of what I have termed that centripetal movement was to amend the state of affairs in regard to the external policy of the Empire. A very large part of the movement towards the greater unity of the Empire, closer relations between the Mother Country and the Dominions, arose from the profound dissatisfaction of the Dominions in regard to the whole conduct of foreign policy.
      I very well remember that at the very first Imperial Conference, that of 1887, this question of the foreign policy of the Empire was brought before the Conference by the then Prime Minister of Victoria, the late Sir James Service. The Committee will remember that was the time when our Australian Colonies were beginning to feel very grave apprehensions in regard to the incursion of other European nations into the Pacific,
      1996
      and Sir James Service came to this country in 1887 very largely to protest against the view that the foreign policy of the Empire was to be directed completely and exclusively from Downing Street. The Australian Colonies were at that time very gravely apprehensive of the consequences likely to arise to them from the neglect of the advice which they tendered through Lord Derby, who was then at the Colonial Office, with regard to the acquisition of various islands in the Pacific ocean. What was the burden of the argument which Sir James Service put before that Imperial Conference in 1887? The whole burden of his argument was this: You, the Mother Country, have given to the Dominions absolute and complete autonomy as regards their domestic affairs, but, in reference to external matters, which vitally concern their future—and I remember the words of Sir James Surface, although I am afraid I have not verified them—"we, the Colonies, are still in the position of outside petitioners to the Colonial Office." That was felt to be an intolerable situation. [HON. MEMBERS "Divide!"] I have not finished, and I intend to finish, all being well, because I think the points I desire to make are of very great moment, and I wish to make them in the way I think desirable. I say that was felt to be an intolerable situation, and it was the realisation of that situation which led to the periodic consultation with the Dominions in a series of very important Imperial Conferences. I have always looked back to the Imperial Conference of 1911 as the turning point in the history of the foreign relations of the Empire.
      It being Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Lieut. - Colonel RUDKIN: In the interests of the public, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the fact that these Amendments have only by your courtesy been printed and have only reached my hands to-day—I am not sure whether they have yet reached the hands of those hon. Members who are supporting me—I wish to ask whether you will allow this Debate to be adjourned until reasonable time has been given to enable me and those who are supporting me to read through the very intricate Amendments which are put before us at the last moment?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Quarter-past eight has been appointed by the Chairman of Ways and Means for the taking of this business. The House, by its own Resolution, dispensed with the printing of Amendments about 10 days ago, as is usually done at this time of the Session. But out of courtesy to the hon. and gallant Member, I understand that the promoters printed the Amendments, and that they were available early yesterday.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I understand that, in the circumstances, you will not permit the consideration of these Amendments to be adjourned. The fact that the Amendments have not been printed at the usual time, and have been circulated only when I asked that they might be supplied to us, seems to convey the suggestion that the company did not want these Amendments to be generally known.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have just explained to the hon. and gallant Member that it was by order of the House that the printing of Amendments was suspended, as is usual at this period of the Session. They have been printed by the promoters, at the request of the hon. and gallant Member.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I did not hear what you said before. Now I quite understand. These Amendments have been put before the House at the last minute, and the great number of speakers who will follow me to-night do not realise what this Bill means. The Bill was rushed through the House some time ago, and passed its Third Reading. I objected to the Third Reading but, apparently, I did not object loudly enough. Now I am objecting to the Lords Amendments to the Bill. Before I come to the Amendment, I wish to say that, in view of the fact that the management of this railway has
  1998
  become a subject of amusement to the whole countryside and to the whole world, and in view of the fact that not only are the trains never punctual, that they are not clean, and that the time tables are not adhered to—
  Mr. COOPER RAWSON: Is a discussion of the train services in order on this Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: On consideration of the Lords Amendments, we can deal only with the actual Amendments sent from the other House.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I bow to your ruling. I was merely introducing the question of the Amendments. The first Amendment is to insert Clause 19A, which is inserted for the protection of the Southampton Corporation. There is a further Clause for the protection of the Metropolitan Water Board, another for the protection of John Edward Arthur Willis Fleming. These Amendments would seem to show that these bodies, or individuals, require a great deal of protecting from this company, when the Lords consider it necessary to insert these Clauses into the Bill. The Clause for the protection of the Southampton Corporation provides that
  "The corporation may and at the request of the company shall grant and convey to the company without the company making joy payment therefor the lands containing twenty-seven decimal three acres or thereabouts coloured pink and the lands containing fourteen decimal two acres or thereabouts hatched pink on the signed plan fm all the estate and interest of the corporation in those lands."
  In the short time allowed for consideration of these very intricate Amendments, I should like to know, not only in the interests of my constituency—
  Mr. G. SPENCER: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to go through the whole of the Amendments now, without coming to any specific Amendment which the House may discuss?
  Mr. SPEAKER: At the present stage, the hon. Member can deal only with the question as to why the Lords Amendments should not now be considered. Later on, when we come to the question of the particular Amendments to which he is now referring, he can deal with them.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I thought I was dealing with the Amendments before

  1999
  the House. I should like to consider on the Amendment to which I have referred, and I should like the House to consider very seriously, where is the consideration if there be no payment? If the House has not time to consider this question, as is the case at present, I submit that a very grave wrong may be done to the public by giving this company the power which it will get if these Amendments be passed. It is obvious that the Lords are not satisfied with the Bill, from the very copious Amendments which they have added. Had they been satisfied, it would not have been necessary to insert these seven pages of Amendments. In these circumstances alone, I think I am right in looking very particularly at the Amendments, and in asking the House to consider the Amendments with great particularity and care. The Clause in question goes on:
  "The corporation shall grant and convey the said lands subject to such rights (if any) over the same as may be held or enjoyed by the Pirelli General Cable Works Limited or other the lessee or assignee for the time being under an indenture."
  Mr. SPEAKER: These questions must be considered when they arise on the particular Amendments, and not on this Motion, which is simply "That the Lords Amendments be now considered." The House must first decide whether or not it will consider the Lords Amendments.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I did not understand. Does this mean that I cannot deal with these various Clauses?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It means that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot do that on the present Motion, but if this Motion be passed, then he will be entitled to say what he has to say on the particular Amendments which have come from the other House.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I ask the House, in view of what I have said, and the fact that the House of Lords have considered it necessary to add so many Amendments to a Bill with which obviously they were not satisfied, and that this House has had so little time to consider these Amendments; and, further, that I myself have had this
  2000
  document thrust into my hands only at one o'clock to-day, and have not had time even to read it through, to defer the considerations of these Amendments to this day three months.
  Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the Amendments which have come from the House of Lords are of a very serious nature. They affect many places, and deal with many points. There are 14 pages of Amendments, all of which are important. Some of them are not Amendments in the strict sense of the word, but are entirely new matter. They come up here as new Clauses, dealing with important questions of detail. In view of the gravity of those Clauses, I submit that the matter should he considered by the Committee which considered the Bill before it came up here. The usual Amendments made by the Lords are small in their nature, but this is a big matter. We cannot properly consider these questions now. Like my hon. Friend, I was only able to get a copy of the Bill late this afternoon. I understand that it was at the Vote Office yesterday, but I had no knowledge of that. I made inquiries in order to get the Amendments, but I was unable to do so, and it has been impossible to digest the important matters contained in these Amendments. One cannot possibly go into the Bill in such a short time with one's ordinary duties to discharge. For instance, a Clause to which there is particular objection is Clause 94, on page 76, which gives the police power to search and arrest. Why these special powers should be given to the police in connection with the railway, and the ordinary powers should be superseded, I do not know.
  Mr. HANNON: Is not this new matter arising out of the Bill, and not the question which is before the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, on this particular matter the hon. and learned Member has misread the Lords Amendment. The Clause referred to was in the Bill when it went to the other House. The other House made only a slight Amendment.
  Sir T. BRAMSDON: Of course, I bow to your ruling, but I was referring to the Clause on page 76 which, as far as I understand, comes up as a new Clause. If I am wrong in that, I am sorry, but

  2001
  that is only another reason why one should be given time to consider these things. The Bill is an omnibus Bill, dealing with many subjects affecting the whole district served by the Southern Railway, and these Amendments are brought forward in a Bill which was thought to be non-controversial, and to which we now find many objections.
  Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: May I ask is it customary to issue Amendments of this sort only 24 hours before they are brought up in this House, when hon. Members have not had an opportunity of looking through them at all?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had been in the House 10 minutes ago—
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: I was.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I explained then that the House, by its awn order, had dispensed with the customary printing of Lords Amendments for the remainder of this part of the Session, and these have been printed at the request of the hon. and gallant Member through me. They are quite in the usual form in the way in which they are printed.
  Mr. GWYNNE: We who represent constituencies in the areas served by the Southern Railway are placed in a very difficult position to-night, because, while we do not want to obstruct this Bill, which is going, possibly, to improve the railway system, or find work for the unemployed, yet we feel that to let this Bill go through at the present stage would be a mistake, unless we could get some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that certain grievances from which we are suffering at present would be looked into and favourably considered. There is no question but that since the Bill passed its Third Reading in this House, great changes have been made on the whole system, and rights and privileges enjoyed for the last 30 or 40 years have been taken away. The promoters of this Bill must know that if we had had any idea that these drastic changes would be made, many of us would have opposed to the utmost of our power the Third Reading of this Bill. To take the opportunity now of obstructing the Bill on the Lords Amendments is a very unsatisfactory course to the House as also to those who are interested in the welfare of the railways, and I
  2002
  would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil) might perhaps save the time of the House, and place us all in a much more happy position if he could give us now, with the leave of the House, a definite assurance that those of us who considered that we have a real grievance, and the public whom we represent, may have those grievances considered, and that the Board would meet certain members representing the districts affected, and go into the matter thoroughly and promise us favourable consideration. I think that would meet my case, and probably the case of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
  Lieut. - Colonel RUDKIN indicated assent.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Otherwise we shall be compelled to obstruct the Amendments to the best of our ability. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to give us this assurance, and I invite him to do so.
  Sir EVELYN CECIL: On the invitation of my hon. Friend, I am glad to be able to address the House on this matter. I represent the railway, inasmuch as I am not only now on the Board, but, as a member of the old London and South Western Board, I was familiar with that section of the system. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has suggested postponement of his Amendment has put me in a difficult position, because I could not but think from his speech, and the way in which he began it, that what he really wants to do is to complain of the train service. But that is out of Order, and I cannot go into the matter at this stage.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I not only suggest that there are very reasonable grounds indeed for complaint with regard to the train service. But in view of the unsatisfactory way in which this company, and the companies which comprise it, have been managed in the past, and in view of the fact that since 14th July they have entirely changed their time-table to the detriment of everybody concerned, I object to these Amendments of the Bill, on the ground that, as the company has managed its business so badly in the past, it would probably manage its business worse if it got the power.
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: My objection is not so much to the bad train service, because

  2003
  in the bulk of my constituency, there is practically no train service at all—
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be quite irregular now to go into details of this sort. On the Second Reading of a Bill it is permissible to ask how a company has used its existing powers, but it is not permissible to do so on the consideration of Lords' Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman can make a general statement on the matter.
  Sir E. CECIL: The only general statement that I can make is that in all such problems as those brought before the House, it is often a question of speeding up a train service to serve the big towns, and this necessarily causes some curtailment in the services to smaller towns. The Board are most anxious to meet the interests of all classes of their clients and of the populations along the line. But, of course, there are sometimes very conflicting interests, and in these conditions they are giving consideration to all parties, and trying to effect a satisfactory service all round. That certainly has been the general policy of the old South Western Board, and so far as I can do anything on the new Southern Board, I shall certainly do my best. I am sure that the general manager will most willingly see my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member with regard to any difficulty in his constituency, and will endeavour to meet the interests of the constituencies in consonance with all the interests that we have to consider. We are anxious in every possible way to meet all the districts which we have to serve, and it is not from any spirit of disinclination that we cannot satisfy all.
  I must say a word or two on the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Colonel Rudkin) about the Lords' Amendments. It is well known that Amendments of this character are often circulated, after discussion between counsel on one side and the other, and after careful consideration by the Committee concerned. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member is quite right in suggesting that the Lords are not satisfied with the whole Bill, because these happen to be unusually long Amendments. The reason why they are long Amendments is that the big interests—especially those of the Southampton Cor-
  2004
  poration and the Metropolitan Water Board—called for a very careful Clause, as a protection not only of their interests, but of the interests of the company in dealing with them. These Clauses have now been agreed by both sides. They passed through the Committee as agreed Clauses. That is why they were added. They were added with the approval of these large corporations, which goes a long way to smooth the passage of the Bill, and to show that there has been consideration of the public interests in these localities. It is following the ordinary procedure of this House to accept the Clauses, to allow them to be put into the Bill, and to allow the Bill to pass. There is no special case in the matter of this Bill compared with any other Bill. If I can give any further explanation to any hon. Member, I shall be happy to do so.
  Mr. COMPTON: This Bill is going to be of service not only to the railway company, but to a great mass of unemployed. As an old trade union official, who has had many meetings and conferences with the Southern Railway Company and the old companies that constitute it, I can say that we have always been received very well by the company, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will take that assurance from me, he would be well advised not to press his Amendment, but to allow the Bill to go through on the promise given.
  Sir E. CECIL: This Bill includes the extension of Southampton Docks, which will mean the spending of from £8,000,000 to £10,000,000.
  Mr. GWYNNE: In view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, as far as I and many of my friends are concerned, we are willing to withdraw our objection, on the distinct understanding that our grievances will be very favourably considered. I hope that the Mover of the Amendment will take the same course. We do not want to obstruct the Bill, but to safeguard the interests of our constituents.
  Mr. LAVERACK: I wish to support the Amendment. I agree that the Southern Railway Company in all probability will try to meet any possible objection. I also agree that the gentlemen who have been concerned in the negotiations have done their best in all

  2005
  probability. I still further agree that these different Amendments, so copious, have been agreed by both sides. But it is one thing for my Lords to agree to Amendments and a very different thing for the Members of this House to agree to Amendments. After all, the House of Commons safeguards the rights of the whole of the people, not merely of one particular railway company. As far as I have been able to study the Amendments, my objections are manifold. I certainly hope that something very special will be given in the nature of an assurance or guarantee, before these Amendments are definitely passed, that these objections will be met. This company in the estimation of some people is a very good company, but in the estimation of other people, including certain hon. Members of this House, it hag been rather a back number. There have been many objections, letters have been written to the Press and to hon. Members of this House—objections to the company have been conveyed to me—and I observe that in connection with those Amendments the Borough of Lambeth is mentioned. I happen to have the honour of being a Member for one of the Lambeth divisions, and I should like to mention two or three special objections which I have noticed on reading through these Amendments. On the first page I notice the following words—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have ruled already that objections of that kind must be taken on the particular Amendment to which it relates when the House has decided to consider the Amendments, and not on the Motion now before the House, which is merely that the Lords Amendments be considered.
  Mr. LAVERACK: I am sorry I was not in attendance when that ruling was given, but there are a number of matters on which I think the House should have further particulars, and the public as a whole should understand exactly what are their rights. There are such matters, for example, as the formation of new roads, the building of new bridges and new viaducts, and so forth. Nowadays the most up-to-date scientific method of road making—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise at all on the question "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: In view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentle-man opposite, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment which I put before the House, and I should like to say that, had we previously received this assurance in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has put it to us now, this matter need never have gone so far. All we desire is to ensure that the public will not be the sufferers by the granting of powers to a great corporation of this description.
  Sir T. BRAMSDON: As one who is deeply interested in this question, may I ask to be associated in any conferences which are to take place?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: May I ask whether I should be in order in addressing myself to the remarks which were made earlier by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil).
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think not. A general discussion of the railway's powers, and the use of those powers, is not in order on this occasion.
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: The Debate has very largely centred round the question of the railway service mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston. He indicated that the general manager would be glad to see any Members who were interested in the railway service in their constituencies, and I want to point out that I have twice written to the general manager, and have only received an acknowledgment of my letters. Therefore I feel rather hopeless about it. It is not that I want to have a better railway service in my constituency; I want to have some railway service. That is all I ask for, but I have never been able to achieve it yet. If the right hon. Gentleman can offer me an assurance that he will give some attention to my constituency, I will withdraw all opposition.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has given a Parliamentary undertaking.
  Mr. RAWSON: The question of railway service has been referred to by three or four hon. Members, and I should like to point out that there is another side

  2007
  to that question. There are constituencies such as mine which, in spite of the fact that there has been no competition, enjoy very excellent services, and those services have been very much improved during the present month.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Major-General Sir J. Davidson) must not be allowed to lead to a general debate.
  Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (LAMBETH BRIDGE) BILL [Lords].
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "the Bill be re-committed so far as Clause 6 is concerned, and that the Committee take into further consideration the question of increasing the headway of the arch on each side of the central arch to 19 feet."
  One feels in a somewhat invidious position in opposing this Bill at the present stage, but I think, in view of the safety of the navigation of the River Thames, it is important that this matter should be raised and that, if possible, the whole question of the height of these bridges over the river should be reconsidered. The existing structure has an arch span of 267 feet with 19 feet S inches headway above the Trinity high-water mark and there is an absence of masonry which affords a clear view—a most important matter for those responsible for the navigation of the river. The new bridge is to be a five-arch bridge instead of the existing suspension bridge and it is to be constructed of masonry and steelwork. The central arch will have a span of 152 feet against the existing 267 feet. This centre span will have 21 feet clearance in the centre and the two arches adjacent to the centre
  2008
  arch are to have 146 feet span and only 16 feet 8 inches clearance above the Trinity highwater mark. It is these two side arches which give considerable concern to those responsible for navigation on the river, especially considering the fact that there are large ocean-going steamers using the river, whose officers have to be responsible for navigating them through these bridges. In this proposed new bridge there is only one centre opening left for these steamers to go through, and I feel that there ought to be at least three, so that in the case of an accident to the centre there would be other openings for the steamers to use. The expert opinion of Captain Shankland, the Harbour Master of the Port of London Authority, in his evidence given before the Select Committee, was that 16 feet 8 inches clearance was totally inadequate, and when you have evidence of that kind, I think, after all, the safety of the navigation of the river is more important than the necessity for having a bridge. I admit the necessity for having a bridge, and I want them to have it, but I also want them to take care that it will leave the river free for navigation by these steamers.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir JOHN BRUNNER: I have the honour of having been Chairman of the Committee which considered the proposed Lambeth Bridge. The opposition to the Bill arose from the Wandsworth Gas Company, which has four large vessels that trade between Wandsworth and the Tyne. This bridge if built as the plan shows will certainly not give passage at all tides through the side arches to these boats. The side aches are designed to have a headway of 16 feet 8 inches above Trinity high water mark. There is no trouble about the size of the centre arch, which will be 21 feet above Trinity high water mark and which will be higher than Westminster Bridge, which is 19 feet 6 inches, but the Committee were of opinion that at most stages of the tide the side arches would be sufficient, and I strongly deny that there will be any obstruction to navigation. We considered that, as the great public advantage of having an extra bridge was one which we were bound to take into account, we could not throw the Bill out on account of these

  2009
  four large vessels. The other navigation on the river is amply satisfied with the side arches of 16 feet 8 inches.
  9.0 P.M.
  I contend that if you wish to navigate the river you must build your boats to suit the bridges, and if you build your ships too large you will only run the risk of running into a bridge and knocking it down, because these bridges cannot be built so securely that, if one of these great vessels touched the top of the arch, it would stand the shock. They might very soon find, if they came into contact with the bridge, that serious damage would be done. I admit quite freely that this proposed Lambeth Bridge is not ideal, but under the circumstances the Committee thought that, seeing that it is a great public improvement, the Bill ought to be passed, because the obstruction to the navigation would not warrant us in throwing the Bill out. With regard to the Amendment to re-commit the Bill, I am afraid that no sufficient evidence has been offered here for such a proceeding, and it does not seem possible, if the Bill were re-committeed, that the Committee could come to any fresh decision.
  Mr. B. SMITH: The question of London traffic is a very serious matter, and I was astounded to hear the statement of the hon. Member for Southport (Sir J. Brunner) that traffic has to be built to fit the bridges, and not the bridges to fit the traffic. That seems to me to be the most restrictive formula which one can possibly put on London, impeding development of all kinds on the river, and holding up the whole question of larger tonnage coming up the river. On top of that, I think it will be in the memory of the House that the particular company which has been mentioned once had a very serious accident with Waterloo Bridge—and it may have had the effect of breaking down that bridge—when the s.s. "Wandle," sonic years ago ran into a buttress at Waterloo Bridge. Here is an old bridge, and here is the traffic of the Thames that could be developed to a great extent, and yet it is to be restricted for the sake of putting 2 feet on two side arches. The whole thing is ridiculous on the face of it, and I hope the House will carry the Amendment.
  Mr. BURMAN: As one of those who had the honour of sitting on the Select
  2010
  Committee which considered this Bill, I hope there will be no further opposition to the passing of the Bill. Undoubtedly, as the horn Member who presided oven the Committee said, there was some difficulty with regard to the side arches, but it only referred to four vessels belonging to the Wandsworth Gas Company, and only on very rare occasions would they be affected. To raise this bridge to the height desired by the Wandsworth Gas Company would involve a very serious additional expense, and at the same time it would have seriously jeopardised the approaches to Lambeth Palace, and on that ground it was opposed by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. When the opposition of the Port of London Authority was withdrawn to the Bill, the Committee thought they had no option but to pass the Bill. In another place the Port of London Authority offered very serious opposition, and as that is the authority responsible for the navigation of the Thames, the withdrawal of their opposition had its effect upon the point of view previously taken by the Committee. However large our bridges are vessels will be made accordingly. The Wandsworth Gas Company have increased the size of their vessels. Bearing in mind the bridges of the river, I think the decision at which we are asked to arrive is a desirable one.
  Mr. HANNON: This, really, is a much more serious question than would appear from the speech we have heard from the Chairman of the Select Committee and other hon. Members. This is really imposing a serious disability upon the navigation of the river. I suggest that before the Committee endorses this scheme it ought to give serious consideration to the extent to which this very important company, whose operations are carried on above this bridge, are interfered with. It is one of the most important public utility companies in London, with a very large branch of its great business being carried on in the Wandsworth region. In order efficiently to carry out its work, it has to employ on the River Thames large steamers. My hon. Friend on the other side, whose special interest in questions of this sort everybody acknowledges, has laid down the extraordinary proposition that you are to base the whole system of navigation upon the size of the bridges. If the principles he has laid down were

  2011
  once accepted in local legislation of this character, you would at once be interfering in private enterprise—
  Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!
  Mr. HANNON: And impose serious disabilities upon the important public utility corporations of this country. I certainly suggest that it is exceedingly high-handed on the part of the promoters of this Bill to insist upon this design of the bridge, and so affect the efficiency of navigation on the Thames. My hon. Friends opposite, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who himself is the embodiment of modern progress, desire to have a voice in this matter. Are we to look forward to the time when the development of water transport on the upper reaches of the river is to be handicapped by this bridge at Lambeth? I submit that it is really an abuse of the forms and privileges of this House, in promoting a Bill of this kind, to ask the House to agree to this condition. I am exceedingly sorry the House has not had an opportunity of earlier coming in contact with the real object of this Bill. In spite, however, of the influential advocacy of my hon. Friend opposite, I certainly think that in face of the facts the House should hesitate a long time before agreeing to this.
  Major BURNIE: I agree that this is a most serious matter, but I view it from a different standpoint to that expressed by some previous speakers—from the point of view of my hon. Friend who spoke about the navigation of the river. The hon. Gentleman for Southport (Sir J. Brunner) laid down the proposition that traffic should be made to fit the bridges of the river, that those steamers which carry these loads should conform to this. But these vessels go to sea in all weathers, and all who have to do business in the North Sea agree that it is a most difficult place to sail in. In heavy weathers the navigator has to nose along the coast, and I think it would be disastrous if this House came to a decision which would impede the navigation of the river in such a way as to cause ships to be built which would be dangerous at sea to the navigator. I do not like to go contrary to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the select Committee, but I think the argu-
  2012
  ment of the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the Archbishop of Canterbury being inconvenienced is not an argument which would weigh with me for one moment against the lives of the men engaged on the vessel.
  Mr. BURMAN: On a point of Order May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that that is not quite a correct interpretation of the Archbishop's attitude. He expressed his willingness to do all he could to help the scheme, but pointed ant that some of this enlargement would affect certain of the gates at Lambeth Palace.
  Major BURNIE: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend, but I am within the recollection of the House as to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I do not think my hon. Friend used the word "opposed," but I understood him to put it that it would inconvenience the Archbishop. However, I withdraw if I am wrong, but such opposition would not weigh with me for one moment as against the interests of the navigators who sail in the North Sea with vessels of so small a freeboard. I sincerely trust that this very difficult question will be taken into due consideration.
  Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Whenever anything comes from the County Council to this House, we get a lot of opposition from certain quarters, but we do not expect it from other quarters. Some hon. Members probably recognise that the County Council has probably carefully considered what kind of bridge should he erected. Again, if there be any authority that knows anything about the matter, it is the Port of London Authority. They are satisfied with the new bridge. I am informed by an ex-chairman of the County Council, who is at present in the House, that the Port of London Authority are satisfied with the project It is desirable that Wandsworth Gas Company's ships should be able to sail at all states of the tide. I want the House to discuss this as a business proposition. This is something more than a ramp—something to make a joke about.
  Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is my hon. Friend entitled to describe a clear, honest and deliberate scheme as a "ramp"?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have often wondered what was the meaning of the term "ramp"
  Sir W. MITCHELL: My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) finds himself in curious company to-night in those whom he is supporting. What says the proverb about "adversity making strange bedfellows"? This bridge has been held up for a long time. The arches are 19 feet all through, with centre arches big enough to take these steamers at all states of the tide. If attention were directed to the other bridge further down that is to be rebuilt, namely, Waterloo Bridge, there might be something to say against it, and I am in favour of having a wider bridge there. I hope, however, that the House will not be deflected in this way from supporting the proposition which is put forward in this Bill by the London County Council, and I hope the House will consent to the Third Reading.
  Mr. GILBERT: Reference has been made in this discussion to the Port of London Authority, and I would like to put their views before the House. That authority is the navigation authority for the Thames, and in matters relating to the rebuilding of bridges their view should be taken into serious consideration. In the first place, the Port of London Authority opposed this Bill very strenuously. They objected to the original height of the arches, and after seven or eight days hearing evidence, concessions were made which they accepted from a navigation point of view. They not only considered the question in view of the large amount of traffic up to the gasworks, but also from every point of view. At last they were satisfied with the concessions, and did not oppose the Bill before the Committee. The fact that the navigation authority for the river is quite satisfied with the new bridge ought to be sufficient, and I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young): I am informed that in 25 days out of the month the two side arches are quite sufficient for all the traffic. I would also like to point out that the centre arch has been considerably heightened in comparison with Westminster Bridge. As this matter has
  2014
  been seriously gone into by the Committee responsible, I hope the House will agree to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

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

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

        COLONIAL OFFICE.
        Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £113,031, 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 the Colonies."
        Question again proposed.
        Sir J. MARRIOTT: I was attempting, when the proceedings were interrupted, to argue in Committee of Supply that the movement towards Imperial unity and closer association between the Dominions, the Colonies, and the Mother Country have been immensely stimulated, if not actually initiated, by the difficulties which had arisen in regard to the external relations of the Empire and its several parts. I remember that one of the great Australian Colonies—in fact, several of them—found themselves impelled to complain that at the time of the arrangement made about the Pacific Islands they actually occupied the humiliating and intolerable position of merely being outside petitioners to the Colonial Office. I think there were ninny people in this country who also regarded that position as intolerable, and it was that which led to the remarkable series of conferences between the Colonies and the Mother Country which, beginning in 1887, went down to the very eve of the Great War. In regard to those conferences, I cannot refrain myself from referring to

        2015
        the views—most important from the point of view of the question raised to-night—expressed at the conference of 1911, when Sir Edward Grey laid before the representatives of the Dominions in the fullest and frankest manner the whole diplomatic situation in Europe.
        Now I come to the War itself. I invite the Committee to consider for one moment what happened. At midnight on the 4th August, 1914, every part of the British Empire and every Dependency was ipso facto at war with Germany. There was no question, from the constitutional point of view, of any Dominion being in a position so to speak to contract out of it. That was legally and constitutionally impossible. It is true that their actual participation was absolutely voluntary and spontaneous, but from the constitutional point of view they found themselves, whether they liked it or not, in a great war, in the making of which they had no part. That was the position. I do not think anybody can be surprised that the Dominions said, "Never again will we consent to be involved in a great war or to be involved in diplomatic negotiations in which we have had no part." They said in effect, "Call us to your councils." I have always thought that the experiment which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) initiated in December, 1916, in bringing into being an Imperial War Cabinet, was one of the most important innovations in our whole constitutional history. Many Members of the House will remember an afternoon in May, 1917, when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs informed the House that it was the unanimous resolution of the Members of the Imperial War Cabinet, that an Imperial Cabinet in war or peace was henceforth to form a part of our permanent constitution. The War ended. The Empire Delegation went to Paris, and at the Paris Conference the Dominions claimed and were inevitably accorded separate and several representations at the Conference. They put their several and separate signatures to the Treaty of Versailles, and they found separate and several representation on the League of Nations. That is a very important new departure. I do not want to criticise for one moment the action the
        2016
        Dominions then took, but when the history of this time comes to be written, that will be marked as a new departure of the greatest possible significance.
        I have said that in 1917 the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs informed this House that an Imperial Cabinet in war and peace had become a permanent part of our constitution. An Imperial Peace Cabinet was in fact again summoned to meet in 1921. What happened? The Dominions had no sooner conic into this country when they declined—for reasons which I have no doubt were well understood in the Dominions and perfectly sufficient—to accept the designation "Cabinet." Perhaps a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, but at any rate, I have always held that this disinclination of the Dominions to accept the description of "Cabinet" in 1921 was an act of very considerable significance.
        I want to come next to the events in this connection of last year. The House will remember that a little more than a year ago a difficult situation arose with regard to the conclusion of what was known as the Halibut Treaty. On 2nd March, there was signed at Washington a Treaty which was designed to protect the Halibut Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean. I would like very respectfully to put one or two questions to the Secretary of State. Who were the contracting parties to that Treaty? Were they the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America? If not, who were the contracting parties? Is it a fact that the Treaty was signed only as far as the Empire is concerned by the Canadian Minister, Mt. Lapointe? It is a point of real constitutional significance to ascertain on whose behalf Mr. Lapointe affixed his signature to that Treaty. Another question I would like to be enlightened upon is on what conditions was that Fisheries Treaty ratified by the Senate of the United States of America? Am I right in believing that the American Senate refused to ratify the Treaty as between Canada and the United States of America? This is a point which will ultimately become, I think, a point of very great significance. Is it a fact that the Senate declined to ratify the Treaty if it was to be regarded as only a Treaty between the Dominion of Canada and the

        2017
        United States, and that it would be ratified only if regarded as a Treaty between the British Empire and the United States of America? There is one other question I want to put and that is whether as a fact Papers have been laid in regard to the Halibut Treaty of last year.
        I do not want, for reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, to discuss the question which has more recently arisen with regard to the Treaty of Lausanne. The only point with which I desire, with all the earnestness I can command, to impress upon the Committee is this, that, in my judgment, we have reached, in regard to the constitutional position of the Commonwealth, a stage which is both delicate and which, if not properly handled, might become dangerous.
        We have granted to the great Dominions—to use a current phrase—autonomy within the Empire. What is the meaning to be attached to the words "within the Empire." I submit that phrase should imply an entirely equal share in determining the foreign policy of the Empire. If that be assented to, then I want to know how are the Overseas Dominions going to be permitted to take that share. It is not only a question of mutual good will. I am confident that as long as my right hon. Friend is at the Colonial Office we may be assured of that good will. But it is also a question of machinery. Have the Government any suggestion to make in regard to the machinery for co-operation which they are prepared to indicate to the House of Commons? If they have not, and if any representative of the Government gets up and tells us that it is the deliberate opinion of the Government that the discussion of machinery would at the present time be inimical to the interests of Imperial co-operation I for one shall immediately acquiesce and not press the discussion of that point. This is a question in which I have been profoundly interested for many years, and that is my excuse for imposing myself on the Committee to-day. As a student of Colonial affairs I cannot conceal my opinion of the gravity of the situation at which we have arrived, or my fears that if that situation is unduly prolonged the consequences may be such as I for one refuse to contemplate. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has done some-
        2018
        thing to-night to reassure the Committee and the country, and I hope that before the Debate ends we may have an answer to the specific questions which I have ventured to put.
        Mr. SHORT: I am sure the Committee has listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), which shows that he has been at some pains to gather together a measure of historical knowledge and events which must interest all of us. This discussion has arisen because our Dominions and the Colonies have protested against being committed to enterprises particularly arising out of foreign policy which engender losses probably of treasure and of blood, and they desire naturally to be represented, so that they may be parties to the formulation of these various policies. I have observed for some considerable time a growing independence on the part of the Colonies and Dominions. I think it is a welcome attitude, and one which, in the interests of this country, and indeed of the Empire, might reasonably be encouraged. We have seen them demanding increased powers in connection with the making of Treaties by the United Kingdom, and they have already succeeded in establishing their claim, especially in reference to the Versailles Treaty. It seems to me essential that the House should give considerable attention to this growing demand and legitimate desire of our brethren across the seas, and I particularly welcome the speech of the Colonial Secretary and the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman made. I take it that any body that might be set up of the character contemplated will have very wide powers indeed, and I conceive the members of it will discuss some things which possibly go beyond treaty-making powers and foreign policy.
        We all know that when bodies of this character are set up, there must inevitably be a demand made to bring to them for decision questions outside those contemplated by the originators of the scheme. I say this in order to indicate to those interested the fact that the possibilities are greater than they contemplate. If that view be accepted, then we should have to have some different machinery to that which has been suggested. In supporting the plea

        2019
        which was put forward by the present Colonial Secretary on the occasion of a previous Debate, I do not want to cast any reflection on those who so admirably represent the respective Governments which we have in mind. I observe in connection with these Imperial Conferences that there is difficulty in securing anything in the nature of continuity of policy. It may be that a Minister representing the Government of this country, or one of the Dominions, or one of the Colonies, speaking with authority and weight for the moment, may possibly within a few weeks of returning to his own country be thrown from power and influence and succeeded by a member of a different political party who may be in a totally different frame of mind on the questions he has been speaking upon. Therefore if we are going to face this problem satisfactorily we must get some form of machinery which will be more representative of the views of the country, as distinct from the views of the Government of the day, so that we may aim at continuity of policy. I am not unmindful of the difficulties that will arise from pursuing a policy of this kind, but there is such general agreement here in favour of the development of our Imperial standard and the growth of unity within the Empire that it ought not to be impossible to secure something in the nature of the machinery I am now supporting. I believe we might get some bigger form of representation at these Conferences—representing the United Kingdom on the one hand and the Colonies and Dominions on the other. Success lies in that direction, and I trust that, in future negotiations, that aspect of the matter will not be overlooked, but that the statesmen of the day will concentrate their minds upon that issue, so that we may secure a more representative gathering or conference than we otherwise should.
        Mr. HANNON: I desire to put to the Secretary of State a few questions upon a matter which seems to me to be of considerable importance, namely, the operation of our oversea, settlement scheme at the present time. I am sure it is the desire of every Member of the Committee, as it is the desire of every thoughtful citizen of this country outside
        2020
        the House, that we should have in operation a really carefully considered scheme of oversea settlement. My right hon. Friend presented to this House in April last a Report of the Oversea Settlement Committee. No doubt that Report had been prepared a considerable time before it was presented to the House, because it brought the conditions affecting over-sea settlement up to the close of last year. In that Report, the first important feature of oversea settlement to which attention is directed is that which is known as the nomination scheme. I am not at all certain that this scheme, which on the whole has worked satisfactorily, was not originally the conception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery). At all events, he certainly gave it substantial encouragement while he was dealing with oversea settlement schemes.
        The nomination scheme, which simply puts into the hands of an immigrant in one of our Dominions the power of getting another immigrant to come out to settle with him, has very great potentialities. I should like to ask the Secretary of State what progress is being made in New Zealand and in the Commonwealth of Australia, where this nomination scheme has been in operation for a considerable time, and what prospect there is of making it a success in Canada, where it has only quite recently been introduced. I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend what steps his Department are taking to make known the possibilities of this process of emigration to local authorities throughout the country. In connection with the whole scheme of oversea settlement, there must be persistent and carefully considered educational work. Unless you can bring in the sympathy of local education authorities, unless you can get the sympathy of the great teaching profession in all its branches in this country—in public schools as well as secondary and elementary schools—you cannot make a really comprehensive scheme of oversea settlement a success. Having regard to the pronouncements Which my right hon. Friend has from time to time made outside this House, we look to him to see that the necessary spade-work, in making known through every channel that offers itself, the possibilities of oversea settlement, is not lost sight of in the administration of his Department.

        2021
        I should like to ask him, further, whether he is taking care that, in the case of these nomination emigrants, there is no danger that their family affiliation and relationship may take precedence over real efficiency in the quality of the emigrants that may go out. Naturally, if au emigrant settles, either on the land or in suitable surroundings in an industrial community, in one of our Dominions, his tendency will be to bring out one of his own relatives. Of course, as my right hon. Friend knows, in some of the Dominions land settlement only is permitted, as is the case in Canada. In others, an emigrant who goes to an industrial centre may use his privilege of nomination to bring out one of his friends. Is my right hon. Friend's Department guarding against the danger that an immigrant, in the exercise of his privilege in that direction might bring out a friend or relative who might not be as efficient as another emigrant might possibly be?
        Mr. THOMAS: You might prevent an Irishman from bringing along a friend?
        Mr. HANNON: Or you might prevent a Welshman from bringing along a friend. I do not care from what part of the Kingdom they come if they are efficient. What I am afraid of is the quality of the particular Celt who goes abroad. As my right hon. Friend, in doing me the honour of interrupting me, introduced the Celtic fringe, may I say that Irishmen all over the Dominions have given an extraordinarily good account of themselves as settlers, and that, whatever may be their defects in their own little island at home, they certainly have shown a great faculty of being useful as settlers abroad? In my continuous journeyings round the Empire, while I have found that Scotsmen are pretty prominent, and on the whole efficient, I have not found many of my right hon. Friend's countrymen coming up on the top and making a demonstration of their capacity as settlers. I am sorry for having said that, but my right hon. Friend brought it upon himself by interrupting me without rhyme or reason in the course of my speech.
        I should like to put this also to my right hon. Friend. It is the case that assistance is given towards the passages of emigrants to our Dominions, but a great deal of restriction is imposed in connection with the issue of those
        2022
        passages. I put it to my right hon. Friend, with his generous temperament, to consider whether some modification might not be made in the case of specially and exceptionally qualified emigrants, in order to make it easier for them to get passages to our Oversea Dominions. While I am quite sure that in the Dominions themselves every conceivable effort is being made to provide for the reception of emigrants who go to those Dominions, there have been complaints from time to time that the machinery was not, on the whole, entirely satisfactory. I think it would be very useful indeed if my right hon. Friend, through the Colonial Office, would have a statement prepared giving details of the various agencies which are now operating in our Dominions and Dependencies for the reception of emigrants, and of the means adopted by those various agencies to place emigrants in suitable surroundings or their arrival at their destination. In making this suggestion, I cast no reflection at all on the desire of our Dominions, and of the administrations in our Dependencies, to do their best for these people, but I would suggest that it would be distinctly encouraging to people in this country who desire to undertake the great adventure of going abroad and founding their fortunes in another part of our Imperial heritage, if they were assured that every step possible was taken to make their reception as congenial as possible, and to encourage them to establish themselves safely when they are there. Now I come to the question of child migration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook from time to time gave expression to his great desire that in cases of child migration—
        The CHAIRMAN: I have for some time been doubtful whether the hon. Member was speaking on the proper Vote. I find that in Vote 3 of Class V there is a special Vote dealing with child migration. Child migration does not come under this Vote.
        Mr. HANNON: I apologise, Sir, but I was taking the Report of the Oversea Settlement Committee, which, I understood, would be covered by the provision in Sub-head A, to which I venture with great respect to refer you. I suggest to you that the whole question of Oversea Settlement is covered by the Votes

        2023
        embodied in Sub-head A, and, therefore, I submit with respect that I am entitled to call attention to the various matters in the Report, which has been issued by my right hon. Friend's Department, dealing with these questions.
        The CHAIRMAN: It has already been ruled in the. House that when there is a special Vote dealing with any subject, the subject should be discussed on that particular Vote, and the question of child migration undoubtedly comes under Vote 3 of Class 5.
        Mr. HANNON: In that case I apologise for having pursued the topic so far, but I am quite certain the hon. Gentleman will adopt the policy laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook of making his schemes of overseas settlement as complete and as attractive as possible to the people of this country, and I suggest to him that not the least interesting means by which he could encourage that excellent object would be through our public elementary and secondary schools. I have the greatest possible respect for the teaching profession, but they are not always utilised as a great instrument of education in the making from a practical point of view, and I think the schools could be encouraged to provide textbooks for the children in which the potentialities of the Empire would be set forth and in which in an encouraging and sympathetic way the mind would be drawn to the possibilities that await them under favourable circumstances abroad, and that without any flavour of politics at all. I offer my sincere congratulations to the Secretary of State on the encouragement he has given to school children who have been brought up to the Wembley Exhibition in order that they might see something of the possibilities of our Imperial development and expansions, and I hope that great scheme of encouraging local education authorities to send numbers of school children to be taken, under the direction of experts, to the various branches of our Imperial Dominions will have very valuable results in dealing with overseas settlement. I am sure no subject ought to receive more consideration from the Department responsible than developing, kindly, carefully, and intelligently, overseas settlement, and while I think the
        2024
        groundwork of a great scheme has been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrooke, who has taken such an interest in the question for many years, it has been well pursued and maintained by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
        10.0 P.M.
        Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: I do not intend to dwell at too great length upon recent unfortunate events, but I think no one has paid tribute to the action of the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir E. Grigg) in again and again bringing to the notice of the House the fact that proceedings in connection with Lausanne definitely differed from the conditions laid down in the Imperial Conference Resolution, and I should like to pay that tribute now. The truth is that the Secretary of State, when he finds himself faced with a crisis, is apt to take refuge in an attitude a little mysterious and esoteric. So esoteric was his attitude on this occasion, that I am reminded of the definition of the schoolboy of the kangaroo—
        "This animal has a punch into which lie retires in moments of what he conceives to he great peril."
        Like other speakers, I think one can hardly commend the marsupial makeshift of the panel system. It has been called a panel with one Dominion representative alternately appearing. In my judgment—it is merely a matter of phraseology—it seems a little more like a mad hatter's tea party with a changing dormouse. It seems to me—the problem is not a new one—that it has been met, as King Arthur met the similar problem of equality among the community, by having recourse to the mechanical device of the Round Table. Directly one speaks of a genuine equality between the Mother Country and the Dominions, one must be brought face to face with many disquieting features, and when that supposition is taken in connection with the doctrine of Parliamentary control over foreign affairs—a doctrine which we have had urged on many occasions, for which there is obviously much to be said, but a doctrine which wants very carefully studying before it can be fully accepted—you are led to a very awkward and difficult situation, because every Dominion Parliament will claim what this Parliament is claiming, and it must lead to a terrible dissipation of the treaty-making power.

        2025
        Look at the great international settlements with which we have been familiar recently. Take the negotiations for the Anglo-French and Anglo-Russian ententes, which were so important at the end of last century and the beginning of this. If one reads the illuminating words of one now lost to us and always to be regretted, the late Lord Percy, one realises in making this agreement what a delicate balance had to be struck and in how many fields, a balance affecting places as distant as Morocco, Newfoundland, Afghanistan and Persia. I wish I could think that Parliamentary discussion in all the Dominions and in the Indian Legislature of questions like those complicated questions which were dealt with by Lord Lansdowne in Afghanistan, was going to lead to a really effective control of foreign policy or any very great constructive usefulness. Again, take what must face every Colonial or Foreign Minister, the necessity of making an apparent sacrifice of a position for a larger and ultimate end. Take, for example, Lord Salisbury's attitude in the nineties over those obscure negotiations in Madagascar, when that great philosophic mind of Lord Salisbury made certain strategic concessions, which it was only easy to recommend in a larger view of the situation. Remember that in future those would have to be defended, not before one Parliament by one Minister, but, before seven Parliaments by seven Ministers.
        There are other considerations. I think a very wise emphasis has been laid on the fact that you have not done enough when you have concentrated the discussion upon the negotiation of treaties. The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual perception, laid stress upon that. You can no more separate the actual making of a treaty from the rest of diplomacy than you can separate batting from cricket, and say to your Dominion representatives: "Yes, come in; we do not mind your batting for us, but as regards the bowling and the fielding, we can look after that." A treaty is but one stage or one moment in a prolonged international contact, and how long can a Dominion be content with admission only at a late stage? These are just admissions to show that I am not labouring under any misconception as to the real disadvantages that must come when we acknowledge
        2026
        that Dominion sovereignty which is now an established fact. Some people complain of the League of Nations for giving public recognition to the fact. Long before the League of Nations, it was a fact in reality, as anyone who was in Canada in 1916, 1917 or 1918 well knows. Indeed, it seems to me that one can hardly expect to find any simple solution, all sufficient in its recommendations, for this large question of Dominion control over foreign policy. Of course, we can avoid the blunder of trying to pretend that things are not what they are, and we may, perhaps, have to leave the ultimate solution to future generations. But it does occur to me at times, in looking over this, that more important than large and sweeping pronouncements at the moment are the few practical steps which can be taken, and that they may be more helpful.
        To many people the idea of Dominion representation with foreign powers is an alarming idea, and it can be alarming in one aspect. But is it only the question of the actual Dominion representatives which is the important part? Has it been asked what will be the nature of the staffs which accompany the Dominion representatives? Are there, in other words, to be in future seven diplomatic services That is an aspect of the question which, I think, has never been raised or met, and yet it seems to me there are all kinds of possible confusions and misconceptions, not between the head men in these things, but in the staffs, the permanent civil servants who accompany them. Are we to have seven diplomatic services? If so, we are put in a far worse position even than the Holy Roman Empire, which, at least, had an Imperial service, and we may find that these definitely drift apart. And is it not worth asking, in this connection, whether we recruit our service with an eye to getting the maximum infiltration of other than European elements? It is not my intention on this occasion, as it would be ruled out of order, to discuss the recruiting of the diplomatic service, but it seems to me the difficulty in regard to the recruitment of candidates from the Dominions is a question which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will look into. I confess, having given some attention to it in

        2027
        former days, I am not very hopeful of the solution along those lines. It does seem to me that the diplomatic services are bound to develop separately, to a very large extent, although anything to break down that separateness—and something can be done—is something worth doing. I wonder whether it is not best to let things develop, in other words, to hope that Canada, for instance, may produce in the future men with the wisdom, foresight, intelligence and knowledge of Sir Joseph Pope and build its diplomatic service out of these.
        Is it possible—and I throw this out merely as a speculation, which, I think, cannot be mischievous as coming from a back bench Member—that a solution is to be found in a logical recognition of the separateness of the Dominions to such an extent that we are diplomatically represented with them and they with us? What I mean is this. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the difficulty in recognising who is the actual representative when a negotiation of this sort arises with the various Dominions. It may not be the High Commissioner. It may be that a solution may possibly be found on the lines of a Dominion diplomatic representative, an expert of experience and out of politics, whom the Dominion would accredit. Is there not something to be said for accrediting the Diplomatic Service to the various Dominions? Of course one realises that it would mean great constitutional difficulties as things are at present. But, so far from separating the various parts of the Empire, it does seem to me it would bring into our foreign and diplomatic service elements familiar with Dominion conditions, and surely to have diplomatic representatives who have been in the Dominions, seen something of Dominion politics, and known the atmosphere that exists there, would be all a gain.
        Mr. THOMAS: Does my hon. Friend mean that each Dominion should have a sort of Foreign Office in this country, or does he mean that the Dominions should have certain representatives in our own Foreign Office, or whether we as a Foreign Office should avail ourselves of the services of the Dominion Civil Services?
        Sir G. BUTLER: What I meant was that each Dominion should have, no doubt a small, but its definite permanent
        2028
        foreign diplomatic service, from which it would accredit, besides the High Commissioner, who has many trading and other duties, representatives of special technical experience to deal with diplomatic affairs.
        Mr. THOMAS: As any contribution will be welcome, I wanted to know exactly what my hon. Friend meant. Surely he cannot conceive of a Dominion delegating that power to what, after all, would be a civil servant taking the responsibility?
        Sir G. BUTLER: That is perfectly true. It is true now that when an Ambassador signs a Treaty, special letters patent are sent out to him. It would not be a different position in that respect.
        Mr. AMERY: May I remind my right hon. Friend opposite that on 23rd May, Mr. Bruce, in the Australian Parliament, speaking on the question of a High Commissioner, or of a Minister representing the views of the Dominion, suggested that the time might come when Australia would prefer to have the representative of their views on foreign policy more of the character of an Ambassador than a High Commissioner or a Minister. To that extent, the view rd my hon. Friend behind me is supported by what the Prime Minister of Australia said only a few weeks ago.
        Mr. THOMAS: May I remind my right hon. Friend of what some other Prime Ministers said about that same speech?
        Mr. AMERY: I admit that.
        Sir G. BUTLER: My suggestion is that, quite apart from the actual negotiation of Treaties in the interests of intercommunication between the Empire, familiarity with our foreign policy, carried through a long period, could undoubtedly be helped by such a person, even if he were not in the highly-responsible position which the right hon. Gentleman indicated. It seems to me that from our point of view it would be an advantage if we could have that touch within our service. It is true that the actual amount of diplomatic work to be done in a capital in the Dominions might not be very great, but there would be more opportunities for observation. Sir Robert Morier used to say that the period during which he learned the most was the period during which he was posted at Stuttgart and Munich. I always re-

        2029
        member the advice that my old master, Sir Cecil Spring Rice, gave to me when I first went to Washington. He said that no English official should stay in the United States longer than three months without going to Canada. When I asked him why, he replied—he always used his wit in order to instruct young men—"Well, my boy, I always like to look at red pillar boxes," leaving me to think out the implication of that remark. I do believe that to have our diplomatic service in touch with the Dominions in that way would be worth paying a price for, even if it did not solve everything. The right hon. Gentleman put his finger upon a weak spot at once. For one thing, it would give us more thorough diplomatic touch with the Pacific. Instead of looking at Pacific problems in a European way, we should have Pacific problems looked at in the way that Australia and New Zealand look at Pacific problems, which is considerably different from our own way of looking at Pacific problems, fully incorporated into that office. I offer these remarks as a small practical suggestion relating to the greatest Imperial problem we have at the present time, to which, under the instruct-
        2030
        tion of great masters, I have tried to devote some little thought.
        Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS V.

      COLONIAL SERVICES.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £863 413, 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 sundry Colonial Services, including Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State and certain Granto-in-Aid."—[Note: £400,000 has been voted on account.]
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
      Committee to sit again To-morrow.
      The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Ten o'clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  DOCKYARD POWER STATIONS (WAGES).
  DOCKYARD POWER STATIONS (WAGES).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  APPEALS AGAINST FINAL AWARDS.
  APPEALS AGAINST FINAL AWARDS.
  DISABILITY PENSION'S (MR. J. DEERY).
  DISABILITY PENSION'S (MR. J. DEERY).
  QUARTERMASTER-SERGEANT FITZGERALD (WIDOW'S CLAIM).
  QUARTERMASTER-SERGEANT FITZGERALD (WIDOW'S CLAIM).
BRITISH ARMY.
  RECRUITS DISCHARGED.
  RECRUITS DISCHARGED.
  INDIA (NUMBERS EMBARKED).
  INDIA (NUMBERS EMBARKED).
  RIFLE SHOOTING.
  RIFLE SHOOTING.
  DECEASED OFFICERS' MEDALS.
  DECEASED OFFICERS' MEDALS.
  PARKHURST CEMETERY.
  PARKHURST CEMETERY.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE
  ROYAL AIR FORCE
  CIVIL SERVICE (EQUAL PAY).
  CIVIL SERVICE (EQUAL PAY).
  GRETNA (SALE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY).
  GRETNA (SALE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY).
  BREWING COMPANIES (PROFITS).
  BREWING COMPANIES (PROFITS).
  FOOD AND DRINK (TAXATION).
  FOOD AND DRINK (TAXATION).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  LAW OFFICERS (REMUNERATION).
  LAW OFFICERS (REMUNERATION).
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  PRISON INJURY.
  PRISON INJURY.
  SHOP HOURS.
  SHOP HOURS.
  SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTH SHIRE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.
  SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTH SHIRE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.
  ASSAULTS ON CHILDREN (COMMITTEE).
  ASSAULTS ON CHILDREN (COMMITTEE).
  ABYSSINIA (SLAVE-TRADING).
  ABYSSINIA (SLAVE-TRADING).
  LIBERIA (CONTRACT LABOUR).
  LIBERIA (CONTRACT LABOUR).
  GERMANY (POLICE FORCES).
  GERMANY (POLICE FORCES).
POST OFFICE.
  TELEGRAPH FACILITIES, LEICESTER.
  TELEGRAPH FACILITIES, LEICESTER.
  JURY SERVICE.
  JURY SERVICE.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  WIRELESS BROADCASTING (NEWS).
  WIRELESS BROADCASTING (NEWS).
  WAGES (RECEIPT STAMP).
  WAGES (RECEIPT STAMP).
  CHERTSEY POST OFFICE.
  CHERTSEY POST OFFICE.
  IMPERIAL WIRELESS SERVICES.
  IMPERIAL WIRELESS SERVICES.
EDUCATION.
  TEACHERS (TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION).
  TEACHERS (TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION).
  CRAFT TEACHER'S WINOW (GRATUITY).
  CRAFT TEACHER'S WINOW (GRATUITY).
  HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL PARISHES, FIFE).
  HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL PARISHES, FIFE).
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
TRANSPORT.
  MUNICIPAL TRAMWAYS.
  MUNICIPAL TRAMWAYS.
  THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
  THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
  POOR LAW RELIEF, SHEFFIELD AND ECCLESALL.
  POOR LAW RELIEF, SHEFFIELD AND ECCLESALL.
  HOP CONTROL (ACCOUNTS).
  HOP CONTROL (ACCOUNTS).
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
  RUSSIAN GRAIN (IMPORTS).
  RUSSIAN GRAIN (IMPORTS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read la: and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR):My Lords, before I mention a date for the Second
2
Reading of the Agricultural Wages Bill I ought, perhaps, to confer with the representatives of the Opposition. I may put it down temporarily for Thursday, but it may have to be altered.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Probably it will be found more convenient not to take this Bill on Thursday, but if the Government put it down only provisionally then, perhaps, on the adjournment we might decide.
LORD PARMOOR:I think that that was the arrangement. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is not here. I was very much pressed to put the Bill down for to-morrow, but I hope it will be possible to take it on Thursday. I agree that that must be a matter of arrangement.
EARL BEAUCHAMP:My Lords, may I enter acaveat against putting down measures provisionally for a certain date? I notice that, apparently, the discussion on India is to be continued to-day, although I had understood that it was to be taken at a later date. It is extremely inconvenient if the Government makes mistakes of this kind, because a noble friend of mine who moved the adjournment expected the Motion, in accordance with the arrangements made, to be taken on a subsequent day, but found it put down for to-day. It is really very inconvenient to noble Lords especially if they live in the country, and if we could have dates a little more definite and fixed, it would be to the convenience of everybody.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, it is only fair that I should say that in the matter of the Indian debate I do not think that any blame attaches to His Majesty's Government. It was down for yesterday and could not be taken because of the other proceedings. An arrangement was then come to with the Government that it should be taken at a later date. There is a little difference of opinion between me and the noble and learned Lord whether that was Thursday or Friday, but it certainly was not to-day. The responsibility for putting the Notice down for a later date, however, did not lie on His Majesty's Government, but on one of us, I am afraid. That is an oversight for which I apologise to my noble friend. As the Motion was in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, it was our business to see that it was put down for a later date. But I hope that nothing will be understood as fixed with regard to the Indian debate until a later hour this afternoon. I shall have the opportunity of seeing Lord Peel and the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, and the matter can be put on an. absolutely firm footing. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, that it is very unfair to noble Lords when a mistake of this kind is made.
LORD PARMOOR:I sympathise with the noble Earl, and I hope that later in the afternoon everything will be quite settled.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
KEIGHLEY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE):My Lords, this Bill is a very simple one. It follows the principle which your Lordships laid down about three
4
weeks ago in connection with the Guardianship of Infants Bill. In that Bill you decided that it was well that while a married woman living with her husband and cruelly ill-treated, with the children neglected, should be able to get an order which should provide for their maintenance under her guardianship, that order should not be enforced while the husband and wife were still living together. There is always a chance that things may come right. The advantage of the order is that it gives the woman somewhere to go to with her children, if she is driven out of the house by her husband.
This Bill follows the same principle. It has been represented to us by some of the Stipendiary Magistrates that it would be a very great advantage to them if, in the case of orders made on the ground of cruelty, the orders could be made so that the woman might be sure that she had somewhere to go to and yet should not be enforced while she remained living with her husband. There is the advantage that the husband knows that she has got an order from the magistrate. The whole subject of the Bill is contained in Clause 1, where your Lordships will find that the law is proposed to be made as I have stated. There are other things in the Bill; for example, it extends the jurisdiction in cases where the husband drives his wife into prostitution. I do not think there will be much controversy about the measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:My Lords, I think this is rather a good Bill. It is the first Bill which the Labour Government have brought in which, in my opinion, deserves any commendation. I sincerely hope that the Government have turned over a new leaf, and are in future going to bring in Bills which may possibly do some good.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:Was not the substance of this Bill brought in by the late Government in the last Parliament?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I rather think it was.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD):My Lords, last year there was a debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in your Lordships' House, and during that debate the view was expressed that there should be some financial discussion on the day when the Second Reading is moved. This year there has been intimated to the Government, through the usual channels, a desire for some discussion this afternoon. In these circumstances, and as this Bill enacts the first Labour Budget which has been presented to Parliament, it may not be inappropriate if, in moving the Second Reading, I touch briefly upon some of the broad principles of Labour finance. I do not, however, propose to deal with individual taxes in detail, because I understand that it is not usual to do so in your Lordships' House. I will confine myself to certain general principles and considerations bearing on the raising of revenue. I will not to-day go into questions of Expenditure. This is a Bill to raise money not to expend money, and there are other occasions for discussion on expenditure. Indeed, one such debate took place in your Lordships' House two or three weeks ago.
Now, Labour financial policy as regards taxation is, in the main, based upon two principles. First, the taxes should be equitable, and, secondly, they should be economically sound. That a tax should be equitable means, of course, that it should conform to the well recognised maxim of ability to pay. The view of the Labour Party is that there is a figure of income, which is at present fixed at £250 a year, below which there should be exemption from taxation on income and on necessaries. I maintain that the theory underlying this policy is based on an unshakable foundation, which is that there is a certain minimum standard of living below which there should be no taxation of income or of the necessaries of life; for example, food taxes, because such taxes would eat into the margin which is essential for health and efficiency. In short, to impose food taxes on persons with less than £250 a year would be wrong for two reasons. In the first place,
6
there is no real ability to pay such taxes, and, in the second place, they would be economically unsound. They would be economically unsound because they would decrease the physical efficiency of the people which, of course, it is the duty of the Government so far as it can to maintain at as high a level as possible.
The Budget of this year has been constructed in accordance with these principles of which I have been speaking; so when the Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in a position to make remissions of taxation it was only natural that the food taxes—that is, the taxes n sugar and tea—were the first to receive his consideration, and out of total remissions under this Bill, which in a full year will amount to £47,943,000, the relief given in the remission of the sugar and tea and other food duties amounts to £25,193,000, and of the balance of £22,750,000 rather more than half, or £12,500,000, is absorbed by the abolition of the Corporation Profits Tax. The main lines of the Budget met with a large measure of support, at any rate in the first instance, in almost all quarters; in fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was told that had the late Government been in power their Budget would have been practically the same as his. I must confess it is a little difficult to believe this.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:By whom was he told this?
LORD ARNOLD:Words to that effect were used in another place. I confess it is a little difficult to believe this in view of what happened in 1922 and 1923, in each of which years it was possible to give substantial remissions of taxation. There was a substantial surplus in each of those years; that is to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the same opportunity as the Labour Government has had. But what happened? In those two years, 1922 and 1923, taking them together, remissions were made from direct taxation to an amount of about £90,000,000 a. year while, on the other hand, the remissions made in respect of indirect taxation in those two years, taking them both together, were only about £22,000,000. That is to say that the relief which was given to the direct taxpayers in those two years was about four times as great as the relief which was given to the indirect

7
taxpayers. In these circumstances, I think that a little scepticism may be pardoned when it is suggested that if our predecessors had been still in office the Budget would have been practically the same as the present Budget.
I think this scepticism is all the more justified in view of the fact that whereas, as I have said, in the first instance the Budget was received with a great deal of approval, there gradually emerged a more critical line which concerned itself, in part, with a proposition which always seems to excite great interest in Conservative circles. What is that proposition? It is that there ought to be a certain balance—what exactly is the balance is never very clearly defined— between the proportions raised by direct and indirect taxation. I want to deal with this matter because, in my view, there is hardly any other financial subject on which there is more unsound discussion than on this one. It is true that it used to be deemed desirable to maintain a balance, formerly half and half, between the amounts raised in our Budgets by direct and indirect taxation. But this theory is not really based upon any scientific principle. It had been abandoned in practice before the war, and it has been abandoned still more since. I have agreed that taxation should be imposed, in the main, in accordance with two principles—that it should be equitable, and economically sound. Those are the main principles which should govern the tax system, irrespective of how the proportions between direct and indirect taxation work out in the result. In short, the theory that you must maintain a certain balance between the two kinds of taxation is purely arbitrary, and leaves out of account altogether the overriding considerations of equitable and economically sound finance.
I believe this view that I have been advancing about this question of the proportion between direct and indirect taxation is one which is based on scientific principles of taxation and finance; in fact, I do not believe that scientifically it can be attacked. There is, however, another standpoint from which what I have been saying may be criticised; that is, that it is wrong to raise too small a proportion of the national Revenue from indirect taxation because such a policy means that large numbers of the people
8
of the country who have votes have not a sufficient responsibility for national policy and national expediture. This is an argument which, I confess, has never seemed to me to have much real substance in it. Irrespective of anything else, there is, I submit, one supreme consideration which is, in itself, a sufficient reply. It is this—that the workers more than any other class feel the effects of any mistake in policy. They feel it first, and most, and last. Therefore, apart from taxation (and the workers do pay heavy taxes), they have every interest and motive to exercise the suffrage wisely and with a full sense of responsibility.
While many opponents of Labour policy will agree that indirect taxation in the shape of the food taxes has been too heavy, yet they contend, on the other hand, that the Labour Party is not sufficiently mindful of what are deemed in certain quarters to be substantial reasons against the present direct taxation and particularly the present high Income Tax. I should like to examine two or three of the reasons. The first one which I will take is that the Income Tax ought to be reduced, because in this way a great stimulus will be given to those engaged in industry and commerce. My reply to that is, not that the argument is untrue, but that it is greatly exaggerated. Let me look at the actual facts and analyse what would happen. A reduction of the Income Tax would, if it could be a considerable reduction, act as a stimulus to those classes of the business and commercial community who are working for themselves—that is, who are in business on their own account—but only a very small proportion of the Income Tax comes from, such persons. On the other hand, a reduction of the Income Tax could not act as a stimulus to those who are drawing their income from War Loans or other loans, or from rents or mortgages, or from debenture interest, or preference dividends, or who are ordinary shareholders in public limited companies. It must be remembered that the work of limited companies is for the most part carried on by paid officials and employees, who will continue to perform their duties and conduct the business much the same whatever the Income Tax is, and therefore their activities cannot really be stimulated by a reduction of the Income Tax. I have now enumerated some of the chief sources from which the Income Tax is derived,

9
and I say that if the whole matter is examined closely, it will be found that very much the major portion of the Income Tax is paid in one way or another by persons who are, as a matter of fact, entirely outside the area where this stimulus theory could operate. It is for these reasons that I maintain that too much is claimed by the advocates of what I may call the stimulus theory.
There may be more force, it is true, in the contention that the effect, especially psychological, of a reduction of the Income Tax would be to act as a stimulus as regards extensions of business, new enterprises, and so forth. But for this factor to operate in any material degree it would be necessary for there to be a much bigger reduction of Income Tax than seems at all likely in the near future. If the Income Tax were to be halved, the psychological effect and the stimulus might be appreciable, but it can scarcely be contended that a reduction of the Income Tax by, say, sixpence or so would be sufficient in amount to cause persons to engage in new undertakings which otherwise they would not enter upon.
The next reason in favour of a reduction of the Income Tax which I will examine is that a reduction ought to be made in order to increase the amount of capital which is saved, or, at any rate, to increase the possibilities of savings. It is, however, by no means clear that anything like the whole amount remitted by a reduction of the Income Tax is saved. Indeed, in these post-war days, when so many people are feeling the burden of high taxation and high prices, it seems reasonable to suppose that a considerable proportion of money coming from reduced taxation is not saved but is spent. At any rate, what exactly happens must be a matter of considerable doubt, and I pass on to another consideration in this connection, which is that about £300,000,000 of national Revenue goes back to the wealthier classes in the form of interest and redemption of War Debt. Therefore, looking at the matter in this way, more than the whole of the Income Tax and more than half of the Super-tax are not raised for expenditure in the ordinary sense of the word; that is to say that this large amount of about £300,000,000 goes back again to the taxpayers, in this way adding to the reservoir for savings.
10
Another reason advanced against a high Income Tax by some people is that they think it is so keenly felt, that in order to avoid it capital will be sent abroad. Those who make this objection overlook, for one thing, that sending capital abroad does not help a man to escape Income Tax, unless he is prepared to try to defraud the revenue, which, by the bye, it is not very easy to do. A man in this country is liable for Income Tax wherever the income is derived, either here or abroad. Therefore, if a man sends his capital abroad he is just as liable to pay tax on the income from that capital as if he had kept it at home. I will only add that the number of people who, in order to escape taxation here, not only send their capital abroad but who go with it and live abroad must be very small. The price to be paid—that is, exile from England which is involved—is too great.
But there is another argument, which, though somewhat vague, seems to come to this, that our higher rate of taxation has such a generally depressing effect upon the whole trade position of the country that capital can find more remunerative markets abroad. It does not, however, seem necessary to take these suggestions too seriously. The question naturally arises if capital is to go abroad, where is it to go? Let me examine this problem. Investments in our Dominions, Colonies and Protectorates are, for the most part, in the shape of Government and similar Loans, but there is, of course, a limit to the demand for Loans, though I am glad to think that as an outlet for British capital such investments are as good as ever they were. Let me, however, look at the position in some other parts of the world. South America does not offer the same scope nor the same attraction for new issues as in pre-war days. The same applies to the Far East, though I should be sorry to think that some capital cannot profitably find a home in that quarter of the globe. As regards the United States of America, if investors choose to send their money there, they will find that they have the privilege of paying not only Income Tax in this country, but also United States' Income Tax.
I do not wish to press any of these points too far. All I am saying is that the opportunities for investment abroad are not so unlimited as some people seem

11
to suppose. A certain amount of such investment year by year is desirable, but when it is suggested, because of high taxation and so forth here at home, that the export of capital abroad will take place in undue amount, the reply is, as a review of the position shows, that such a proceeding is not likely to happen. The good opportunities are not sufficiently numerous. At one period prior to the war it became the fashion for certain people to make nearly all their investments abroad. But I know that in not a few cases this course was repented of and later on investors brought much of their money back home again. They had found that the old country was the best and they were wiser, if poorer, men.
I submit, then, that some of the prevailing objections against the present rate of the Income Tax are a good deal overstated. Moreover, whatever differences of opinion there may be as to that, it is necessary in these questions of taxation and finance to survey the problem as a whole and to balance various considerations, and then try to arrive at a policy which possesses the greatest net advantages for the country as a whole. I will not weary your Lordships with going through various figures and calculations in order to prove the point I am going to make, more especially as I said I was not going to deal with questions of Expenditure to-day. I scarcely think, however, it would be disputed that at present further reductions in the Income Tax will in the main be made at the expense of long overdue outlay on social objects. Therefore, your Lordships will scarcely expect a Labour Government to do otherwise than scrutinise closely suggestions that a further reduction of the Income Tax is of greater importance than anything else.
I emphasise again that in these matters it is necessary to survey the problem as a whole and to take into consideration large questions of policy. It will, I am afraid, always be found that the problem of taxation chiefly consists of a choice of evils. It is a question of balancing things and having regard to the fact that there have already been substantial reductions of the Income Tax in both 1922 and 1923, amounting to 1s. 6d. in the £, or a total remission of £80,000,000 a year, and that this Finance
12
Bill abolishes the Corporation Profits Tax and the Inhabited House Duty, both really forms of Income Tax—and the repeal of these two taxes will mean in all a further loss to the Revenue in a full year of £14,500,000, making £94,500,000 in all—I say, in view of these facts, it seems not unreasonable to proceed for the time being upon the plan of doing something so far as possible to meet other and even more urgent claims. Please observe, my Lords, that I say for the time being, and I am not suggesting that the present rate of Income Tax should continue indefinitely.
I have now dealt with some of the main principles and considerations which underlie the provisions of this Bill. As I stated at the outset, I do not intend to discuss individual taxes in detail, because that is not usual in your Lordships' House on this occasion. If it were customary I should certainly have wished to say something about the McKenna Duties. I do not, however, propose to detain your Lordships longer this afternoon, though there are many tempting themes in connection with the Budget which I should like to touch upon. In view of the fact, however, that the Finance Bill passed both its Second and Third Readings in another place without a Division, it is evident that there have often been Budgets more controversial than this one, and, indeed, it seems only fair to assume that the main provisions of this Bill are deemed to be just and right. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON:My Lords, it is well known that discussions on Finance Bills in your Lordships' House are, in a sense academic, and I should not have risen after the speech of the noble Lord had it not been for the fact that he laid down certain principles which ought not to pass without brief comment. The noble Lord has made statements which we must challenge as being entirely opposed to our view. He spoke, without apology, of the difference in regard to the reduction between direct and indirect taxation during the last three years, and he said that the balance rested on no ascertained basis.
LORD ARNOLD:No scientific basis.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON:He, if I may say so, is comparing like with unlike. He proceeded to say that last year, or the year before, some £90,000,000 had been taken off direct taxation and only £22,500,000 off indirect taxation, but he forgot to remind your Lordships that the amount levied in direct taxation is out of all proportion to the amount levied in indirect taxation and, therefore, the comparison he made in this respect is wholly inapplicable. As a matter of fact, nearly two-thirds of the Revenue is raised by direct taxation—Income Tax, Super-Tax and Estate Duties—and it is not a question of whether or not the sum raised is out of proportion merely; the question is whether it is not acting in a burdensome way on trade and actually checking the entrance into the Exchequer of other revenue to which the Exchequer is fairly entitled. As an illustration, let me deal with the strange statement of the noble Lord that we need not worry if we do pay extra Income Tax because £300,000,000 comes back to us in the way of Grants. In the first place, I challenge the statement, and I do so after having listened to many Budgets in the House of Commons. I have heard Chancellor of the Exchequer after Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that of all Government expenditure the most profligate is that on Government Grants.
LORD ARNOLD:The noble Earl will allow me. My point was that it comes back in interest on the War Loan into the pockets of the taxpayer without any interference.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON:The noble Lord used the word Grants.
LORD ARNOLD:No, pardon me.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON:I think he will find that he used the word Grants. If not, I apologise for my observation. My point was that any Government Grant is often dissipated and does not produce the result intended. There is one other point in the Finance Bill which I hope the noble Lord will consider. Some progress has been made in regard to the fairer taxation of land. The only thing I ask is that land should be treated as a business; that operations with regard to landed properties should be treated in the same way as you treat a business. If
14
that is done all cause of complaint will end, I do not know whether the noble Lord has had to study this particular question. It is only by very slow steps that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have come to regard the taxation of landed property as if it were not something abnormal. But there is nothing abnormal about it. Such profits as it produces should be taxed in exactly the same way as the profits of a business.
I will give the noble Lord one example, and this is the last matter with which I shall venture to trouble your Lordships. At this moment there exists, in regard to the taxation not only of land but of other settlements, a system which presses in a most extravagant way upon land. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that a man, through business or by other means, obtains a sum of £2,000 a year free of tax. His assessment for Super-Tax is at £2,000 a year plus Income Tax—say, for the sake of argument, £2,700. That is fair. He has also covenanted to pay, or it has been covenanted to be paid for him, as a portion of his estate, £2,000 a year free of tax, and when he comes to deduct that sum, over which he has no control whatever and of which he does not see a farthing, he is told: "You could have done that, but it is not £2,000 a year plus the tax, but only £2,000."
That is because, in the year 1918, by a rule of the Finance Act which I do not suppose was ever read by any member of the Lower House who could deal with it, it was specially stated that all such settlements free of tax should be disregarded for the purposes of that Act, and therefore the unfortunate person, who finds himself tied down to pay a sum which perhaps he has no desire to pay, finds that he has to pay Super-Tax of 4s. or 5s. in the £ on £700 a year of which he receives nothing. I have put that case before the Treasury. It was perfectly indefensible, but they said that to change it would be to reduce the amount coming into the public Exchequer. I do not think that this argument would stand the racket of fair consideration, and I suggest to the noble Lord that it should be considered for another year.
Speaking in general terms, the noble Lord told us that the problem should be stated as a whole and that it was a choice of evils. I sincerely trust that, when the

15
choice of evils takes place next year, he and his colleagues will not forget that, unless they see their way to reduce the burdensome taxation on trade, now far in excess of that of any foreign country, the difficulties of unemployment must unquestionably continue to be not merely pressing but permanent.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON:My Lords, I wish only to offer a very few and, I am afraid, somewhat perfunctory observations on the Finance Bill. I am not sure that they will be entirely in line with the objections taken by any particular Party. The reason why my observations will be few is that I want to point out that I do not think it possible to have any really useful discussion by following the arguments of the noble Lord who introduced this Bill. And for this reason: he started with a premise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a position to remit taxation. It is that premise that I think is mistaken. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were really in a position, looking not only to the present but to the future, to remit taxation I should not be prepared to find much fault with this Budget. I should regret the remission of a portion of the Entertainment Tax, because I doubt whether that will really inure to the benefit of those whom it is intended to benefit, and I think that if you wish to convey a benefit you might have found better means of doing so than by the remission of the Entertainment Tax. But that is a detail into which I will not go.
My feeling is that, although at the moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position to do without the money which is remitted in the Budget, he had before him, and he and the Government knew that they had before them, a very large increase in the expenditure of this country. The taxes which they are in a position to remit, so far as the expenditure of this year is concerned, will have to be replaced by increased taxation in the coming year. To consider the expenditure lying ahead was part of their old policy, and to some extent of the policy of every Party, and with the admitted necessity for increased expenditure on a very large scale ahead of us, and, apparently, without the prospect of corresponding economies in other branches of expenditure to meet them, I think that
16
this is really an improvident Budget. I know that it is a popular Budget, but nearly everything that is improvident is popular at the moment. My real objection to it is that it will, in the long run, be found to be an improvident Budget, and that next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever he may be, will be faced with the necessity of imposing new taxation. That will really bring us to the test of whether the Government, if they are in office a year hence, really think that they can get much more revenue on economically sound principles by increasing direct taxation.
I do not care at all about the balance between direct and indirect taxation, as an abstract proposition. If the Revenue of the Exchequer were within such limits that the whole of it could be raised by direct taxation, and were so moderate in amount that it would not press upon the springs of industry, I would not mind seeing the whole raised by direct taxation. What I feel is that the present high rate of direct taxation does press upon the springs of industry, and really deprives the country of some of that elasticity which is necessary for its recovery from the ruin wrought by the war. If it is already pressing upon the springs of industry, I should very much like to know—though we cannot expect the Government to tell us now—how it is in their minds, if they are in office next year, to meet the gap between Revenue and Expenditure which will undoubtedly arise next year, and will be larger than ever because of the remittance of taxation this year. If they are going to meet it by increasing direct taxation, they are going, I think, to deal a blow at the recovery of British trade.
There does really lie between us and some of the supporters of the Labour Government, if not the noble Lord opposite, this difference of opinion, that some of his supporters believe that all surplus income should go to the State. We believe, or I, at any rate, believe, that if the State is to have all surplus income, that is to say, if the capital of the country is to be placed at the disposal of the State, then those resources which are now used in the form of surplus income to increase and develop the productive capacity of the country will not be used by the State to anything like the same extent. If the Government, by these

17
remissions of taxation, were not preparing the way for new direct taxation which will have to be imposed, I should not desire to criticise the Budget, but it seems to me that the Budget as it stands, with its remissions of taxation brought in with the knowledge of the increased expenditure which is ahead of us, and apparently without much prospect of economies in expenditure, is a Budget which is really clearing the way, if it is not actually intended to make a case, for some new taxation next year. I do not believe that you can find new taxation next year, if it is required to replace that which could now be imposed, without pressing more hardly upon the trade and prosperity of the country than the actual taxes which are removed under this Budget.
Then I come to the other point which seems to me to make it rather unprofitable to follow the arguments of the noble Lord. He said, as he was entirely justified in saying, that this Budget took no account of Expenditure. Now, Expenditure is really, it seems to me, of the essence of the question.
LORD ARNOLD:Will the noble Viscount permit me to interrupt? I said that I would not this afternoon deal with Expenditure. I did not say that Expenditure had nothing to do with the Budget.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON:I entirely accept the noble Lord's statement as to the way he put it, and I said he was justified in saying that he would not in this discussion deal with the question of Expenditure. That is my whole point. It is most difficult on the Budget, of course, if no account is taken of Expenditure, to have a profitable discussion. If it were not for Expenditure ahead I should not be discussing the Budget. I am, however, not going into it any more than I have done, but I wish to point out that no reduction of taxation will be really equitable or economically sound if you have heavy Expenditure ahead and you do not see your way to meet it. I am sure of this, that however much you reduce taxation on the wage-earning classes, what the noble Lord opposite said is perfectly true, that if there is distress—he did not use that word but I think he meant that—in the country, and trade is bad, it is those classes who suffer most.
18
It is not enough to say with regard to Expenditure ahead, as the noble Lord did say, that it is long overdue. That is not the question. The question is whether the country can afford it, and I feel the Budget has not taken account of what Expenditure is ahead, and that if we find new taxes are necessary next year, and those taxes have to be taxes which press upon the industry of the country, this Budget, though it appears to be equitable in relieving taxation on the wage-earning classes, will really, in the future have provided for a position which is not economically sound, and in which the greatest burden must inevitably fall upon the poorer and wage-earning classes. That is my real objection to the Budget—that it is put before the country as a popular and equitable Budget, but unless the Government can justify the remissions of taxation by economies in the national Expenditure, and by keeping the national Expenditure within the national means, this cannot be said truly to be a Budget which is either equitable or economically sound.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

LEGITIMACY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Legitimation by subsequent marriage of parents.
1.—(1) Where the parents of an illegitimate person marry or have married one another, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the marriage shall, if the father of the illegitimate person was or is at the date of the marriage domiciled in England or Wales, render that person, if living, legitimate from the commencement of this Act, or from the date of the marriage, which last happens; and such person is in this Act referred to as "legitimated person."
(2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born.
(3) This section does not enable a legitimated person to take any interest in real or personal property, which he would not have taken if this section had not been passed.
(4) The Registrar-General may, on production of such evidence as appears to him to be satisfactory, authorise at any time the re-registration of the birth of a legitimated person, and such re-registration shall

19
be effected in such manner, on such information and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulations prescribe.
(5) No person whose parents have married after the passing of this Act shall be legitimated, nor shall the birth of any such person be re-registered under this Act, unless both parents shall avow in writing at or before the date of the marriage, the paternity of such person, and the regulations to be made under this Act by the Registrar-General shall make provision for such avowals: Persons who have married one another before the passing of this Act must make their avowal in writing at some time during their joint lives, and provision for this purpose shall be made in the regulations, in all other cases legitimacy must be established by proof of percentage and marriage of such parents
EARL RUSSELL:My Lords, there are some drafting Amendments to this clause which have been circulated, and which look rather serious, but they are not really so formidable as they look. You will recollect that Clause 1 was amended in Committee, with the result that it was not quite clear what was intended, or who was a legitimated person, and these Amendments to Clause 1 are to make that clear. I think, perhaps, it will be more convenient if I moved the Amendments one at a time, but they are all, so far as they relate to Clause 1, for the same purpose. I would point out to your Lordships that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, has put down Amendments to my Amendments, and I am prepared to accept them, because I think they are improvements. I move my Amendments as amended in the way suggested by Lord Cave, the noble Viscount not being present to move his Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 6, at the beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section")
Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("happens") to end of line 14
Page 1, line 21, at end insert as a new subsection:
(" (4) No person shall be legitimated under this section unless his parentage is recognised by an avowal in writing made in the prescribed manner by both his parents, and such avowal shall be made in the case of parents marrying each other after the commencement of this Act on or before the date of such marriage and in the case of parents who have married each other before the commencement of this Act at any time during their joint lives:
Provided that, if in the case of any person whose parents married one another before the commencement of this Act, such
20
an avowal cannot be made by reason of either parent being dead, or the date of such commencement, the avowal may be made by the surviving parent at any time during his or her life, and if both parents be dead at the commencement of this Act, this subsection shall not apply.")
In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Registrar-General.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELLmoved, after subsection (4), to insert as a new subsection:—" (6) In this Act the expression 'legitimated person' means a person legitimated under this section. "The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is not clear whether the expression "legitimated person" would include the new persons dealt with under the new subsection, and I therefore move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 3 to 15, leave out subsection (5).—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Provisions as to persons legitimated by extraneous law.
8.—(1) Where the parents of an illegitimate person marry one another, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and the father of the illegitimate person was, or is, at the time of the marriage domiciled in a country, other than England or Wales, by the law of which the illegitimate person became legitimated by virtue of such subsequent marriage, that person shall in England and Wales be recognised as having been so legitimated, notwithstanding that his father was not at the time of the birth of such person domiciled in a country where such a rule of law prevailed.
(2) The provisions of this Act with respect to persons legitimated by this Act shall (wherever the father was domiciled at the time of the birth) apply to persons so recognised as having been legitimated in like manner as if such persons had been legitimated by this Act:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any person under any intestacy occurring, will (including codicil) coming into operation, or settlement or other disposition made, before the commencement of this Act to which he would have been entitled if this Act had not been passed.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the expression "country" includes Scotland and any other part of His Majesty's Dominions, as well as a foreign country.
EARL RUSSELL:The Amendments to this clause—the first in subsection (1), after "legitimated," where that word secondly occurs, and the other, in subsection (2), after "The provisions of this Act with respect to"—are to cover the special provision of Clause 8 which relates to people under foreign law.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 30, after ("legitimated") insert ("as from the commencement of this Act or from the date of the marriage, which last happens")
line 33, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 37 and insert ("legitimated persons and to the issue of illegitimate persons in cases where such persons died before the marriage of their parents shall apply respectively to persons recognised as having been legitimated and to the issue of any person who would have been so recognised if he had been living at the time of the marriage of his parents").— (Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I have risen to lay before the House the character of this Bill. It is a Bill of far-reaching magnitude, and it imposes a heavy financial burden. I am well aware of that. If there had been no discussion throughout the country about this Bill, and if it had not had a long period for its passage through the other House, it would have been necessary for me to detain your Lordships at some length, but I think that if you will allow me to make some general observations in explanation of the Bill I can put it in such a shape that its substance can be expressed comparatively concisely.
The purpose of the Bill is to supply 2,500,000 houses for the working classes within a period of fifteen years. That is a very large undertaking. It is an undertaking which means a heavy burden on the national income. It is a Bill which touches closely what your Lordships have just been discussing on the Finance Bill. But in this matter it is not enough to look only at one side of the account. The Bill is brought forward with the complete assent of the local authorities, who will
22
have the duty of carrying it into effect and who have to make substantial contributions to the cost. And the local authorities are strongly in favour of the Bill, for a very good reason. The absence of proper houses for their poorer classes imposes upon them a heavy financial burden of their own. That is part of the other side of the account. And, when you turn to the State itself, there is also another side of the account which must not be omitted. This Bill will cost the country one per cent, of its income. On the other hand, there is another column to be set on the credit side, which— assuming that the Bill succeeds, which is, of course, a hypothesis—contains a saving of a very far-reaching character.
In this column are certain things which we are apt to dismiss as though they had no bearing upon the financial question, but which really have a very great bearing. For example, bad housing is a fertile cause of tuberculosis, and of other zymotic diseases. It also tends to fill our prisons, because bad houses are nurseries of crime. It imposes on the country expense and loss due to intemperance. It also creates moral evils, such as those which arise when young men and women are huddled together four or five or more in a single room, with the result that there is incest, and much that is very degrading to the moral level of the country. Then, the burden on our hospitals and charitable institutions is added to very substantially by the slum population. It is not only ill-health, it is not only non-moral conduct, but it is that variety of evils which come when a large section of the population is very inadequately housed which we have to consider. These things mean very heavy expense—an expense which is not easy to set out in exact figures of pounds, shillings and pence, but which is undoubtedly very great. And if it is all taken together, I doubt very much whether it does not exceed that one per cent, of charge which appears on the other side of the account.
There is, too, the increase to the rates which these things cause—the poor rate, for example. There is also the fertile source of unemployment owing to conditions which make the workman unfit to do his work. That means resort to the funds of the nation, which have to provide for those who are unable to take

23
care of themselves. And another direct result is that the better class of workmen tend to emigrate. Last year, I think, 62,000 skilled workmen left these shores for other lands both because of the difficulty of getting employment and of the bad conditions under which they had to carry it on. More than that, from a good system of housing you get increased industrial efficiency, and also a tendency to diminished unrest. Bad housing is one of the most fertile sources of unrest, and unrest sometimes in a very menacing form.
It is not merely the great cities, or even the small towns, which you have to consider. Our agricultural population is often very badly housed. This Bill will extend to the agricultural districts also. Besides that, if you go into our mining districts you will find the miners too often housed in villages which are only fit to breed Yahoos. I am speaking of what I have observed myself. This Bill, if passed, will provide housing not merely for the agricultural labourers but also for the miners. If that be so, then it is obvious that the national account in connection with this Bill is not an account which has only one side, it is an account which has two sides, and you have to take the balance; and I am by no means sure —in fact, my impression is very strongly the other way—that, when you arrive at a balance, you will not find, even in money, that, assuming that the scheme proposed in the Bill is a success, you have got a source from which you will not only avoid loss but will make a profit for the nation. Of course, it is a Bill which invokes the assistance of the State, and on a very large scale. In that sense it is a Bill which is coloured by Socialism, but we are all Socialists now.
NOBLE LORDS:No, no!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:Well, I will make an exception of my noble friend, Lord Banbury of Southam, because I suspect that he opposed the Housing Act, 1923, an Act which was carried by the Conservative Party by an enormous majority on the footing of doing exactly what this Bill does.
NOBLE LORDS:No, no!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:It used State funds to provide houses for the
24
working classes. This Bill proposes to use State funds for providing houses for the working classes. The two Bills passed through the other House by large majorities, and one of them has received the complete approbation of your Lordships. I do not think I am very far from being right, therefore, when I say that I am speaking in a somewhat Socialistic atmosphere when I address your Lordships in support of this Bill. The standard of public opinion has advanced, and one reason for that is that, with the spread of education, the people have come more and more to the consciousness of their own title to ask for consideration from the community, which alone can help them. And to-day they are pressing for better houses more definitely than for any other reform which is on the political horizon.
Having said so much, I will come closer to the provisions of the Bill. As I have said, it is a Bill the purpose of which is to provide 2,500,000 houses in the space of the next fifteen years. Controversy has arisen as to whether this might not have been done under the provisions of the Housing Act of 1923. The method is somewhat different from that of the Housing Act of 1923, because the object to be attained is a larger one —so large that it will require the energies of the whole building industry and perhaps the whole body of local authorities. The Bill consists of a threefold treaty. I call it a treaty advisedly because it is not an indenture or a definite contract. It is a treaty in the sense that it is founded on resolutions passed by the local authorities accepting the task of carrying this Bill into execution. Secondly, it is a treaty with the building industry. It is not a treaty with one part of the building industry. It is not a treaty with Labour alone or with Capital alone. It is a treaty with Labour and Capital in combination, and what Labour and Capital in combination have said to us is this: "If you will give us a guaranteed programme, a programme for fifteen years, we will carry through the work." We thought it wise not to deal with them about details of wages and materials, or things of that kind, but to say to them: "Contract to give us houses," and they have said: "We will give you houses and we contract to supply you with 2,500,000 houses

25
within fifteen years." That is the treaty with the building industry and that is the treaty with the local authorities.
It remains to show what is the charter to the tenants. The charter to the tenants is that the working classes will have better houses at the same rates relatively as they were paying before the war; not for the same money because money is of a different value now. Wages have gone up. The cost of living has gone up. Rents and other things have gone up. Workmen were paying, and I have no doubt are paying now, about forty per cent, more than they paid just before the war. They are paying what is considered equivalent to the rent they were paying then. If that be so, the tenant will have for equivalent money, though not for the same money, a better house and there will be better houses in quantities which will afford accommodation for all, or nearly all, who are likely to need them.
Having said so much, I want to bring out the relation of this Bill to the late Government's Housing Act of 1923, because I think that requires to be made plain. This is not a Bill to repeal the late Government's Housing Act of 1923. On the contrary, the powers under that Act will be continued. The only difference will be that the development of operations under that Act will be substantially extended. Under that Act —it has been my business to consider it closely—the houses which were to be subsidised by the State were to be completed by the end of 1925 or, in exceptional cases, 1926. Then they were to receive a subsidy. This Bill proposes to afford subsidies of a. still larger amount. Those houses were houses which, as I shall show your Lordships presently, could not possibly be finished within the time—that is to say, by the end of 1925— and, consequently, we are adding fifteen years to the time, but we give to the system brought into existence by the late Government the same chance as it had before that period of fifteen years was added. Consequently, whatever good there was in that Act is not diminished by our Bill to-day.
Then there comes in a very great difference of principle. The Act of 1923, as it was and as it is to-day, provided not for the building of houses by local
26
authorities in all cases; it provided for the authority assisting by subsidy private builders and other bodies to build houses. When they were built it was open to those who had built them to sell those houses. They did so, and it turned out to be the only really profitable way of operating under that Statute. The result was that tenants could not get houses except under conditions of control. In your Lordships' House we have discussed again and again the system of control. It is a bad system. It is a system that interferes with the liberty of people to deal with their own affairs and leads, consequently, to great friction. But this tendency was not enough to prevent the people who built those houses and who owned them from selling them, and that was the scheme which was most profitable for them to undertake. They did so, and many more houses were sold than were let, with the result that working people could not get the houses they required. They were not in a position to buy; they could not get them on lease; and, consequently, there has been, and is, a very great shortage of houses.
Those things ought not to be stated merely in general average and I will give your Lordships some figures concerning the subsidy. I am not blaming the Act of 1923 at all. As I say, we are keeping it alive. I go further and say that so difficult and so great is the problem that I do not wonder that at the first go off, if I may use the expression, the machinery provided has not been sufficient to meet the tremendous shortage with which we are faced. But under the Act of 1923, whatever happened, nothing like a sufficiency of houses was provided to meet the social needs with which we are now trying to cope. Under that Act it has been estimated that for letting—that is what I am dealing with because, as I have said, the working classes cannot, as a rule, buy houses—7,500 houses were completed and 15,500 were under construction. That means that a total of 23,000 were provided for letting. Then if you turn to houses for sale, which has been the much more popular thing, 10,000 have been completed for sale and 29,000 are under construction. A total of 39,000 houses are, therefore, for sale. Taking the whole number for which contracts have been made, or in respect of which local authorities have issued certificates to

27
private builders—they are not complete yet—there will be 37,000 for letting and 62,000 for sale. Obviously that Act has not solved the problem.
The problem is to provide not less than 2,500,000 houses within a stated time of fifteen years, and the contribution of available houses made under the Act of 1923 is consequently far short of the necessity. It is a real necessity. If we were going to war in defence of our liberties your Lordships would point out that we were taking some risk, and some financial risk. You would say: "See that you think out completely your plan of campaign; see that you are dealing with competent generals, generals who are fitted for their task; study the psychology of the generals on the other side so that you may know what you have to meet, and then put your whole energies into the business of obtaining victory. Do not hesitate about risk. The best you can do is to reduce these risks to a minimum." With this problem as with the problem of war, the very same considerations apply. This is the effort that the nation is asked to make for the liberty of the thousands of men, women and children who live under conditions which are a disgrace to the country, and which are retarding its prosperity, and preventing it from recovering itself. In these circumstances the necessity which is imposed on us is only less than the necessity we should be under if we were compelled to undertake the conduct of a great war, and I 123456invite your Lordships to approach this question as being one not really of a speculative Character on the part of the country, but something we are driven to undertake, and which we must undertake under the best conditions that we can get.
I do not stand here to say to your Lordships that this great measure will attain complete success. Nobody can foresee the future. You cannot see ahead in a case of this kind, but this you can do. You can take care to bring all the powers of thought of which you are capable to bear upon the problem, and take care that in dealing with that problem you obtain the best advice which it is possible to get. That is what my right hon. friend, Mr. Wheatley, has tried to do, and what he has tried to do I propose now to tell your Lordships. I have described to your Lordships the Act of 1923. "We leave that Act standing in the
28
hope that any good which may be obtained from it in the way of the provision of houses may be obtained. Some of the houses built under that Act, but not very many, I am afraid, reach the working classes. A limited number of houses has already been constructed. I believe the number is 17,500. But we want an enormous increase in that number. It is not merely the great cities with which we have to deal. It is not merely in the cities that we have to clean out the slums, but we have to deal with the agricultural districts, which are, in a way, just as important, and we have to deal with the mining villages which are dotted up and down the country and which, in some respects, are the worst of all.
The plan I have already described is a plan on a very large scale, because the problem is one on a very large scale, and this is the way in which it is sought to deal with it. Under the Act of 1923 £6 was paid by the State annually for twenty years for every house which was completed, or was to be completed by the end of 1925. Under the new scheme we have to pay more, because we found we could not get the houses otherwise. After careful negotiations, and after cutting down the demands of the local authorities, who asked for £12 per house, we have got them to undertake that, for £9 a house from the State and £4 10 s. from their own pockets, they will build these houses and let them. These houses are for letting—please bear that in mind in following the plan—and they are houses for letting subject to certain conditions to which I will presently draw your Lordships' attention.
We propose to continue this subsidy until 2,500,000 houses are built, but your Lordships will understand that there may be authorities who may be slack, and there may be builders and builders' operatives who may be slack. We take power to stop the contributions whenever that is found to exist, and machinery is provided so as to see that we get delivery of the goods. If at any time less than two-thirds of the houses which ought to be delivered in the specified time are not being delivered, then automatically the contribution ceases, and, if there is extravagance and costs go up, the same thing happens.
Your Lordships may ask how do we propose to ensure that prices are not run

29
up by a great deal, and that the nation is not bled in that fashion. I have told your Lordships already that if the houses are only being produced at a cost which is over the scale that is established, then there is power to stop them. But there is more than that. Under the Bill it becomes the duty of the Government to make an inspection every three years, for which machinery is provided, to see that everything is going on well. That inspection will reveal how things stand in each particular locality, and will bring the operation of the scheme to a close there if it should turn out that people are not working up to the standard laid down. Then, is regards the materials, we have agreements which have been worked out with those who have provided building materials, and they will supply them at the 1924 cost.
And we have agreements with the men that they will produce the houses. It was suggested that if we did not introduce dilution there would not be sufficient labour, but the trade unions have satisfied us that there is a very large supply of labour which is capable of being brought to the aid of these building operations. They have agreed to enlarge the age at which apprentices may be taken, and they have agreed to look for apprentices in an active fashion. They say—and the others whom we have consulted say—that that can be done, and that there will be no shortage of labour if only there is, what there ought to be, a definite programme of work for fifteen years. People do not like sending their boys into the building trade when they think that they may be thrown out of employment very quickly, but if you have this guarantee of building operations for 2,500,000 houses for fifteen years, then there is a very different state of things. We are informed by those with whom we are dealing that they have no doubt that they will be able to supply the amount of labour that they have undertaken to supply to produce the houses. If they do not supply the houses, then so much the worse for them, for there will cease to be employment for them. We have every reason to take the view that they have a strong motive for carrying out the undertakings that they have given to us, and that the contracting builders themselves are in the same position.
This, my Lords, is not a Socialist Bill. On the contrary, it is a Bill which deals
30
with Capital, and leaves Labour and Capital on their existing footing. We leave the builders to employ the workmen, and we leave the workmen to engage with the builders, and they are both satisfied that they can do it. They have come to us in a joint organisation, have ventured into this scheme, and have given us an undertaking that it will be carried out. The local authorities have been equally helpful and sanguine, and that notwithstanding the fact that a good deal comes out of their own pockets in carrying out the scheme. That is, broadly, the scheme and the security for it. It rests upon the motives which people have for giving it reality, and also upon the strong pressure of local feeling and of general feeling to get these houses built and to house the working classes. Therefore, we are not afraid that the scheme will break down. Of course, we cannot tell what will happen in public affairs, but so far as investigation and so far as the responsibility of other people with whom we have to deal go, the prospects are, I think, as satisfactory as we could have hoped that they would be. Anyhow, it is not a matter in which we had any choice.
This evil must be faced and must be dealt with, and I challenge any one to say how it could be more satisfactorily dealt with than the way we propose to deal with it. It is not enough that we have the Act of 1923. Under that Act we were told by local authorities that no more houses could be got for letting, that people only built houses for sale, and that there was not a sufficient prospect for them to go in for letting, and they could not possibly let a house at the same rent as before the war. The plan, then, is a subsidy for each house during the statutory period of £9 from the State and £4 10-s. from the local authority. A differentiation is made when you come to deal with agricultural houses. In agricultural districts in England and Wales houses are much more expensive to build, they are much more isolated, and the rent paid is not the same. It has, therefore, been found necessary to make the subsidy for each agricultural house £12 10 s. The rent received from the agricultural labourer will be substantially less than the rent received from the town worker, who can afford to pay 7s. a week, and even more, while the agricultural labourer is not likely to pay more than

31
3s. 6d. That is the reason for the difference between the rate of subsidy in the two cases—£12 10 s. in agricultural districts and £9 in the case of other houses.
That being the condition of things, I must say a word about control. We do not leave the local authorities quite free in this matter, nor did they ask to be left free. They are getting a subsidy from the State in order to enable them to build houses for the working classes, and if you will look at the Bill you will find the special conditions enumerated. One important condition is that the rents to be charged in respect of these houses shall not exceed the rent that would be payable if the houses were let at the normal rates charged in respect of working-class houses prior to the war. It is to be a rent which is the financial equivalent to what a. workman had to pay at that time. These houses are not to be sold without the consent of the authority, and, indeed, there will be no sale without the assent of the State. We are watching closely to see that the houses get into the right hands.
These statutory conditions are based on continuity of production. Without continuity we could not get the workmen, and we are encouraged by the belief of the builders and also of the workmen that we shall get sufficient houses and sufficient labour if we have this continuity of employment. It means that anybody going into what is really a new department of the trade will have a guarantee that his employment will continue for years ahead. We hope also to develop very much the resources of the building industry. Taken on this large scale employers tell us that it will be possible to get materials in a way they cannot be got at the present time, when the demand is sporadic. The demand will be systematic; and we are encouraged to hope—I do not encourage your Lordships to hope and I should be sorry to make any prediction whatever on it—that new methods will come into operation by which bricks may be made mechanically much more rapidly than at present. With the reform of the bricklayer and the reform of his machinery I think there will be some prospect for the success of the scheme.
In order to encourage local authorities to be economical we do not propose to
32
take away any surplus which they may save upon their contributions. We leave them to apply it towards the reduction of rates, and I hope my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam will regard this as one of the bright spots in the Bill. Indeed, local authorities have gone into the scheme very cordially on this basis. Then again, to prevent profiteering, we have introduced, in another place—it will come before your Lordships later, in the autumn—a Building Materials (Charges and Supply) Bill which strikes at the profiteer and provides that when it is a gross offence it becomes a criminal affair. We think the moral effect of such legislation will be useful in the present case.
Now I come to the Bill itself. The first clause, as I have said, enables a local authority to build, and Clause 2 increases the subsidy to local authorities. But the subsidy is not confined to local authorities. It can be given to public utility companies, bodies not working for profit, and there is also power in certain cases to enable private people or corporations to do the same thing, provided, of course, they conform to the conditions and let the houses at rents which are equivalent to those which were collected before the war. Clause 3 contains the special conditions to which I have already referred. Clause 4 deals with the termination of Government liability to make contributions, and Clause 5 provides for a three years' revision to see whether there is any reduction in expenditure, in which case the subsidy comes down.
A question has been raised as to whether the trade unions might not take in supplement of their labour people who have been trained for a short period in laying bricks. It would have been convenient and desirable if we could have taken on ex-Service men, and we should have been glad to take them on. But not merely did the trade unions but the employers also came to us and said: "Do nothing of the kind. To become a bricklayer requires a certain amount of training." This is what the builders told us just as emphatically as the operatives. They said that the difficulty of house building is that the rate is determined by the slowest bricklayer. If you put a man on who has come late into the business and is not thoroughly trained, then the rate of construction is diminished to the rate at which this man

33
can lay bricks. The employer and employees told us exactly the same thing, and it is a matter in which no opinion of mine, or any opinion of your Lordships, is of any value; it is a matter which must be determined by the people who have experience of the business and who know things at first hand.
That is the substance of the Bill, but I must not sit down without telling your Lordships something about its cost. You will find this set out in Command Paper No. 2,151, which has been printed and is in the Vote Office-, and which explains the Financial Resolution. I told your Lordships that the cost of this scheme was necessarily very heavy—more like the cost of a small war than that of an ordinary social reform. If your Lordships will turn to page 7 of the Memorandum, which the Treasury have approved, you will find that in the year 1924-5 the Exchequer charge is comparatively small, amounting to £278,000, the charge on the local rates also being small, and amounting to £135,000. In 1925-26 the Exchequer charge rises to just over £1,000,000, and the charge on the local rates to £521,000. In 1926-7 the Exchequer charge is £1,905,000, and the charge on the rates £925.000. In 1927-8 the rise becomes more rapid, the Exchequer charge being roughly £2,800,000 and the local charge £1,300,000. Then there is a steady progress until the charges reach their maximum. The peak figures are for the years 1940-41 to 1963-64, and then they are very large indeed, the Exchequer charge being £23,000.000 and the local charge £11,000.000. After that there is a drop, until this Bill comes to an end in 1979, when the charges cease and the work is done
These are very large figures, and I can only say to your Lordships that this is only one side of the account. As the houses develop, they will undoubtedly exercise a very material change not only in the charges to which people are put but in those to which the benevolent and high minded are exposed in their sense of the misery disclosed by these features of our cities and towns and by the state of things in the country. Better population is what we need more than any other reform. I will say that I have a hope of seeing the population in this country upon whom the educational facilities of the time have operated become conscious of
34
better and higher needs, workmen with a decent wage living in a decent home and able to give leisure time to studies and to thoughts which will raise them in the scale of society and which will put them in a position to feel themselves the equal of any man and the inferior of no man. That is what spiritual qualities can give him, and it can be given him by nothing else. Real equality does not depend on the possession of wealth. Nature makes too many artificial distinctions to admit its possibility. But if you give a man a decent wage, a decent home and a decent education, then, indeed, it is his own fault if he does not make it possible to put himself in that position in which he envies no man what are mere material goods, and in which he is content because he has what is best for himself and for his wife and children. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD WEIR:My Lords, I ask from you this afternoon the kind indulgence you extend to those who address this House for the first time on a matter of national importance. Each post-war Government has produced legislation to promote the building of houses, and in each case performance has lagged far behind both expectation and requirements. To-day we have to consider a Bill containing the proposals of the present Government, and in examining it I trust that your Lordships will appreciate that I am not actuated by any political spirit, but rather by the spirit in which I would attack the ordinary problems of a business life. I will not speak of Socialism, but will confine myself strictly to housing. Accordingly, without any further preliminaries, I suggest to your Lordships that this Bill will be little more effective as a measure than any of the earlier Bills promoted by other Governments in its ability to obtain homes for the poor at the rate, and in the time, essential to reduce hardship, to quell growing unrest and to meet the crying need so eloquently pictured by the Lord Chancellor.
In all production problems—and housing is, above all, a production problem—the solution is partly seen when the problem itself is clearly defined. Nowhere can I find any authoritative statement of the number of houses of

35
specific types which the local authorities have shown to be required in any specific time. The Bill, it is true, deals with a programme of 2,500,000 homes to be built in fifteen years. That is a programme which represents the re-housing of over twenty per cent, of our population, but it is the proposal, not of the Minister of Health nor of the local authorities who might be presumed to know their requirements, but of the National House Building Committee, which consisted of master builders and trade union officials. That Committee considered it unlikely that the programme would be fulfilled, and they suggested that the Minister should rely upon a programme of two-thirds of its magnitude. The difference between the two programmes represents a difference in capital expenditure of £400,000,000, and your Lordships are surely entitled to know which programme represents the actual needs of the country, and how these needs were established. But, accepting either of these programmes, it is difficult to agree that they fulfil the actual requirements in respect of the initial five years. The acute aspect of the housing problem is surely the supply of homes for those poor people who are living to-day either in slums or in conditions of grave overcrowding, and I feel that your Lordships should insist that no measure can be regarded as satisfactory which does not provide specially for a more rapid remedy of that situation.
I now pass to an examination of the manner in which the Government programme is to be fulfilled. The proposals are founded on the advice of the master builder, the building trade union, the supplier of building material, and the local authority. They have told the Minister, and he has evidently believed them, that the only way to get houses which can be rented at the tenant's present ability to pay is to treble, approximately, the 1923 subsidy, and to guarantee a minimum demand on the building trade for 1,600,000 houses during the next fifteen years.
With regard to the guarantee, it is a new principle in our industrial history for a Government to guarantee continuity of employment over a long period of years to an established British industry, and I consider it a very dangerous principle. Reviewing British industry as it stands to-day, and especially the state of British
36
employment, if this House were asked to guarantee employment to any industry why should it select the building industy? If special and favoured treatment is to be extended to any industry, surely the selection would be made from one of the great export industries on which our national welfare depends; industries like coal, cotton, iron or steel. Any help or security which can be given should surely be given, to those workers who are fighting for their employment at low wage rates against the world, rather than to those in an industry which is not only protected against foreign competition but one especially well paid, one working particularly short hours, and, finally, an industry faced with a steady demand for its product many times in excess of its ability to supply that product.
It is all very well to talk glibly of expanding the building industry and stabilising it, but what are the economic reactions of that policy going to be on other industries? Will not these other industries require to bear some of the cost of the stabilization? And will not this increase the cost of other British products and accentuate unemployment? I think your Lordships are entitled to some explanation from the Government on these points. Again, on the question of guarantee or, as the noble and learned Viscount has termed it, the "treaty," I fully expected that he would have told us if the modifications which have been made in the Bill in another place have affected the treaty with the building trade, and I now ask if the Government have any definite assurance that the trades are still prepared to carry out their part of the bargain, in view of the many changes which have been made in the Bill. If they have not that assurance, then the entire foundation of the Bill is insecure and unreliable.
Now I pass to the second condition, that of the enhanced subsidy. In very approximate figures the maximum programme, if carried out, will involve a charge on the Exchequer of over £900,000,000, and on local rating of £400,000,000 between now and 1980. Taxation and local rating will have to find about £24,000,000 per annum, and in addition to this the local authorities will incur capital expenditure on a scale which should receive the closest attention of the financial experts of this

37
House. On this question of finance I will confine myself to one single observation. The permissible expenditure on social services—and I think it is quite fair to say that according to this Bill housing is now regarded as a social service—is surely dependent upon the productive performance of the nation, and, in the case of Great Britain, on the productive performance of the export trades. I ask the Government to explain clearly what evidence they possess that our future national performance is going to be effective enough to carry this colossal new burden. In what direction is this country going to increase its turnover to justify the new expenditure?
Let me next examine the main reasons given as to why this increased subsidy is necessary. On page 9 of the House Building Committee's Report it is stated that houses are being built to-day at the lowest possible cost. Without any disrespect to those who subscribed to that statement, I suggest to your Lordships that no one is entitled to declare that any product is ever being produced at the lowest possible cost. Such a statement merely means that the authors at the moment saw no way of reducing the cost; but such beliefs are destroyed daily in hundreds of cases by the march of progress in methods and scientific development. It is a particularly fatal belief when it is held by the very people whose every effort should be directed towards destroying that belief. However, the Minister of Health evidently accepts this dictum, and having laid down the principle that rents are to be to-day's rents of pre-war houses, the disparity between these and the economic rents represents the subsidy figure.
This principle of subsidising rents is strongly political in its character, and I therefore will not dwell upon it, as I anticipate others may do so. But I would point out that since the war we have become familiar with what is called emergency legislation, involved by the abnormality of post-war conditions. One example your Lordships had yesterday —the payment of unemployment benefit without contribution. Another is this question of subsidising rents. I am not prepared to say that the abnormal conditions can yet be entirely disregarded, but I have no hesitation whatever in asking your Lordships to reject any proposals
38
which would appear to accept the principle of subsidised rents as a permanent part of our legislation.
I return to the question of building costs, because the Committeee's Report and the Bill are equally unsatisfactory. Neither of these documents contains any suggestion whatever of the slightest hope of cost reduction, whereas nothing would help the nation more than new light on that point. On the one hand, we have a great industry, comprising workers and employers, who, after closely studying the problem, declare that they see no hope of reducing costs. On the other hand, we have the Government, faced with the most tremendous financial responsibility, equally bankrupt of idea or imagination in regard to this vital question. As a matter of fact, the Committee's Report holds out definite suggestions of increased cost. And I would now ask the Government to tell us by how much the new apprenticeship scheme and the new scale of apprentices' wages will increase building costs. Here I feel that the building trade has lost a wonderful opportunity of rehabilitating itself in the eyes of the community. Suppose they had said: "We have only domestic competition. We obtain fair contract prices. We are relatively highly paid craftsmen. We work very short hours. We recognise the nation's need for homes, and our contribution will be the promise to work pre-war hours for the next five years, and thereby, at a moment's notice, increase by at least 12½ per cent, the output of homes at the most critical period." That would have been a real, effective gesture, but it was not made. These are a few reasons why I consider this Bill will be not only as ineffective as the earlier Bills, but more dangerous in its application. And, in addition to these objections, I think it fails to reveal anywhere the slightest appreciation of the only principles on which a true solution can be found.
These remarks have been entirely critical. I now propose to take the harder course of suggestion, which I hope will be regarded as helpful. Certainly no other course will ever solve the housing problem, and it is only by throwing new light, or by striking some new note, that your Lordships may succeed, where, in my view, the Government and the other House have signally failed. I suggest that the most acute and, in a national sense, the most important part of the

39
housing problem is the supply of about half a million houses, to be regarded as substitutional for the worst existing houses, and the time available for that supply is not over five years. That is the real burden on our national conscience which should be discharged at the earliest possible moment, and that is the part of the housing problem which calls for the most drastic and imaginative handling. Then I propose that every encouragement be given in every legitimate way to the building trade to expand, to develop, and to become more efficient.
But, altogether apart from what that trade can do, and in addition to its efforts, the Government should lay down an auxiliary scheme of housing to provide half a million houses in the next five years under a system of standardised production. Any such scheme must be framed go that it is not permissible under it for any one to trench in any way on building trade labour, or on building trade materials, which are in short supply. Here we have a real production problem—the problem of building so many houses in a specific time, without skilled labour and without the ordinary building materials. The only known principle under which effective production can be secured without the use of skilled craft labour is by the standardisation of product. Given a large enough demand for the standardised product, subdivision and simplification of operation enables intelligent, but unskilled, labour effectively to produce anything, however complex. In the standardisation of homes probably three types will be required to meet the needs of a working-class community, and, by skilful siting and arrangement, monotony could be entirely avoided.
Dealing with materials, it is at once obvious that we must depart from the normal materials. In the first place, some of them are not available, and secondly, normal materials involve a particular method and process of construction, which means high costs. At present houses are built by a process of sending raw materials to a site, and allowing an agglomeration of craftsmen to exercise their various crafts on the site in our unreliable climate. Supervision is difficult, lost time is serious, and it is not easy to remunerate by results. Our objective should be to expend our labour
40
as far as possible in a factory, and reduce the amount of work done on the site.
A review of materials hitherto used in building construction, and also of novel materials, discloses that one of the most suitable alternatives to choose for the main structure would be a combination of timber and steel plate Facilities for the production of steel plate are large and insufficiently employed, and there is no shortage of timber in the world. The use of these materials eliminates the bricklayer, while the multiple production of timber units, by the use of jigs and other methods, makes us independent of the skilled joiner. The inner walls and partitions would be lined with either wood or composition board, no plasterers thus being required. The use of either metallic shingles or asbestos sheets for the roofs avoids the use of slates. By standardisation of the lay-out all the pipes and electric wiring can be produced by factory methods independently of the plumber and electrician, while by the standardisation of equipment and fittings the problem of baths and sanitary appliances, and so on, is rendered much simplier, the middle man is eliminated and the costs are considerably reduced.
I would ask your Lordships to believe that there is practically no novelty or experiment involved in these proposals other than the application of well-tried principles to the production of houses. Quality is not sacrificed; it is rather improved. These principles of production were, of course, applied with complete success in wartime but with this difference. During the war we had no good men unemployed. To-day we have over a million without work, many of whom would be available for this work, and very convincing reasons indeed would be required as to why they should not be so employed. I have no hesitation, in saying that the application of a scheme of this nature would result in reducing the cost of production to a level at which the burden on the country would become supportable and reasonable. I must be very careful in giving estimates, but if the scheme were applied on a sufficiently large scale a three-roomed house with a scullery and bathroom, including foundations, but exclusive of land, roads and drains, could be made and erected ultimately for under £300.

41
I trust your Lordships will recognise that I have not recommended to you a particular type of house which you should build. The type I have described I took merely as an illustration. But what I have tried to do is to indicate the very real and definite possibilities of an auxiliary housing scheme based on the principle of standardisation and of cheap and rapid production methods. It is a scheme or system of building designed to meet the needs of to-day's conditions, equally in housing and unemployment, and I trust it is clear that in its conception it is of the essence of successful private enterprise. Existing methods have failed to meet the emergency needs of our people. This Bill does not alter those existing methods. It stereotypes and perpetuates them, and it will equally fail. More effective methods must be adopted, and that is why I have ventured to offer to your Lordships not merely criticism but also definite and practical suggestions.
LORD STEACHIE:My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are most anxious to do all that is possible to increase the number of houses in this country. On the other hand, while the need is very urgent, the problem of how those houses are to be obtained is a very difficult one to solve. So far, no Government has been able to solve it, and the question that your Lordships are asked now to consider is whether this Bill will solve the problem or not. The only thing that is perfectly clear about the Bill is that it will throw an enormous burden on the Imperial Exchequer and the local rates. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said that there was complete agreement with the local authorities in regard to the Bill. I happen to be a member of a local authority and of one of the large associations of local authorities, and it is certainly not my recollection or view that there is complete agreement among them concerning the Bill. It is true that when the Government had before them this very difficult problem they consulted the local authorities upon it. I have read the various reports and it is clear that what really happened was that, while not in complete agreement about it, the local authorities made the best terms they could with the Government in the circumstances, and I say without fear of
42
contradiction that the local authorities, certainly those representing rural areas, are not in complete agreement on the present Bill.
I noticed, too, that the Lord Chancellor was careful to say that the success of the Bill was more or less hypothetical. I have heard the speeches of many Ministers who were introducing Bills both in your Lordships' House and another place, and I cannot remember a Bill which was introduced with pessimistic views about its success. Most Ministers, in introducing a Bill, say that it is a very necessary measure, that it is a God-sent Bill and is certain to succeed. Curiously enough, this Bill proposes to do very little in the way of increasing houses in the first two years. May I draw your Lordships' attention to the First Schedule to the Bill? In the first two years there is only to be an average of 63,000 houses a year. In the year 1921, under the present Housing Act, 86,000 houses were put up and in the year 1922, 89,000 houses were built. So that under this Bill the Government clearly admit that they are going to do nothing in the first two years to increase the number of houses built as compared with 1921 and 1922. In the next two years they propose to put up 95,000 houses a year. What happened in 1923 was that 71,000 houses were provided for. It is only fair to say that something like 19,000 of those were not completed.
I think that your Lordships have a right to complain of the way in which you have been treated by the Government in connection with this Bill. No doubt, it was a very difficult Bill for the Government to deal with, but it ought to have been introduced in another place earlier in the Session so that it could come up to your Lordships' House in time to receive proper consideration. It might, on the other hand, be said that what was done in the other House is well known, and, therefore, that your Lordships had plenty of time. But may I call attention to the fact that the Bill was introduced in another place on June 5 and received a Third Beading on Friday last? In addition to that, it is only four days since it was read a first time in your Lordships' House. Moreover, it is not now the same Bill as received a Second Reading in another place. It was much smaller then. It consisted of nine clauses covering nine pages, whereas it comes before your Lord-

43
ships with sixteen clauses covering fifteen pages. The Bill has been practically transformed during its passage through the House of Commons, and there is now not sufficient time for your Lordships to consider its effect and what it purports to do.
Not only is this a complicated Bill, hut it follows the vicious practice of referring to various other Acts of Parliament. It contains many cross references. What does the Bill do? It proposes to produce in fifteen years two and a half million houses. It is not proposed to build in the first four years any more than have been built during the past three years, 1921, 1922 and 1923. Then, the scheme is going to involve the enormous expenditure of over £1,000,000,000. I notice from the statement of Mr. Wheatley that there is going to be an annual expenditure of something like £34,000,000. Like most of your Lordships, I very much dislike "doles" and subsidies because I think they are most demoralising. In one of the reports of the employers they state that they do not like subsidies because they think that they are very demoralising. On the other hand, it may be necessary to have subsidies, but I am very doubtful as to how these subsidies are going to provide more workers, and you cannot get more houses built unless you do provide more workers. Subsidies may be of great advantage to those who build houses, but they do not provide the workers who build those houses.
I will ask your Lordships to consider the position in the building trade. In 1901 there were some 800,000 men employed in the building trade. In 1914 that number had fallen to 480,000, and by 1924 it had shrunk again to 360,000. We are told that the number is going to be increased by dilution. In the old days, in 1901, it was quite common for a man to lay 1,000 bricks per day. Now he only lays something like 300 a day. It has been suggested—I do not know whether it is true or not—that if a man lays more than 300 bricks a day he is reported to his trade union. There is a very mistaken idea in the trade unions that by the limitation of production you can relieve unemployment. As a matter of fact, exactly the contrary is the case, as has been shown in America. In America the workmen's idea is to increase production. They know that the result of that is that
44
there is more employment and that their wages are increased enormously in comparison with the wages of the people of this country. An increase of production in one trade is also good for the general trade of the country. The greater your production the more business you do.
We are told that there are going to be more apprentices in the building trade. Your Lordships will remember that not so long ago there were thousands of ex-Service men out of employment and starving, who asked for an opportunity to learn the building trade, but the trade unions absolutely refused to take them in. The noble and learned Viscount said that was not the fault of the trade unions alone but of the employers also. I do not know whether or not that is so, but if it is the employers are equally to be condemned. I think those men who have done such good service to the country ought to have been given employment in the building trade. Mr. Wheatley asked the building trade the other day to increase the number of skilled men. What was the answer of the building trade? They said that they would do it under certain conditions. They were prepared to increase the apprentices from one in ten to one in three, but they laid down certain conditions and, so far as I am aware, those conditions are not a part of this Bill. One condition was that there was to be a definite and continuous scheme for fifteen years. It is true that there is in the Bill a scheme for fifteen years, but there is a definite proviso in the Bill that the Minister may, under certain conditions, scrap the scheme and put an end to it. There was another provision that there should be a statutory committee with great powers, but there is no statutory committee provided for in this Bill so far as I have been able to see. I may have missed it, because this is a very complicated and difficult Bill and cannot be understood in a short time.
The Minister, though often asked in the House of Commons if there was any definite bargain binding on both sides, has never replied to that question, so that it is clear there is no bargain. It would, indeed, be impossible to make any bargain for this very good reason: How on earth can he bind any succeeding Minister? We know that Governments do not always carry out their pledges. We know what happened in the case of the Corn Production Act. The very

45
Government which passed it also repealed it. How can we tell that Parliament will not repeal this Bill if it becomes an Act? What is the reality of this Bill? In reality, it is a Bill to reduce rents at the expense of the Imperial and local taxpayer and also to set up a privileged class of householders who will have a subsidy to help them to pay their rent. This proposal of a subsidy will, like all the proposals of that kind, have a bad effect in increasing the cost of building houses. The Government themselves evidently admit that; in fact, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has told us that they are going to bring in a Bill to deal with profiteering in the price of materials.
But I would point out that it is not only a question of profiteering in materials. There will also be a possible increase in the cost of labour. As this big scheme of building 2,500,000 houses goes forward there will inevitably be a shrinkage in the available quantity of materials, with the usual result that the cost of those materials will go up in proportion as the difficulty of getting them increases. It is an invariable rule that the price goes up as the supply diminishes. The subsidies have already had an extraordinary effect on the cost of building houses. At the beginning of this year the price of a non-parlour house was estimated at £380. Now I am told the price of a house of that kind has risen to £420, and I shall not be surprised if it be found impossible to build any houses of that type in country districts under £500. We are told that the materials may be controlled. I notice that the Lord Chancellor did not say anything about the control of wages. There is a strike or lock-out going on at the present moment, and strikes may occur while this scheme is being carried out so that it may become impossible to get labour except by paying high wages. That, again, will increase the cost of the houses.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack referred to agricultural districts. It is the fact that the Government have given a larger subsidy to the agricultural districts, but I wish there had been a clearer definition in the Bill as to what exactly an agricultural district is, and what agricultural land is. Let us take, for the sake of argument, a house
46
that would cost £450 in an agricultural district. Having regard to what has happened in the past, that is not a very large amount to take. I notice that one of the local authorities has put down the price of a parlour house under this Bill at £450. The Government subsidy for that will be £12 10 s. a year. After deducting the Government subsidy, the rent will be 3s. 7d. per week, or £9 6s. per year. That does not include the rates, and everyone knows who lives in the country that the rates have increased enormously. It is not unfair to say that at present in this case the rates would probably be 10 s. in the £. If you take the rateable value at £8 10 s. a year, the amount of the rates per year at 10 s. in the £ would be £4 5s. That makes a total of rent and rates of £13 11 s. From that you have to deduct the local authority's contribution of £4 10 s. a year. The local authority has to give at least £4 10 s. a year; so far as I know there is nothing to say that the local authority may not, if it choose, increase the amount of £4 10 s. a year. But taking the figures that I have given they show that the deficit will be £9 1s. per year, even after you have received a subsidy of £4 10 s. from the local authority.
It is all very well to talk about 3s. 7d. per week. It may be all right in great towns like Manchester, Bristol and Birmingham, but in agricultural districts 3s. 7d. plus the rates, which will add another 3s. 6d. is entirely out of the question. The agricultural labourer will not be able to pay it, and therefore I do not see how it is possible to erect houses under this scheme in agricultural districts except by putting an enormous burden on local rates, and any noble Lord who is acquainted with the conditions in the rural districts will agree with me that in the majority of cases the rates are too heavy at the present time.
I will only deal with one or two details of the Bill, and deal with them very briefly. There is one provision which I think your Lordships will insist on altering in connection with the Regulations to be made under the Bill. In one case they are permissive; I think they should be mandatory. Again, it is provided— perhaps it is because we have a Labour Government in office now—that the House of Commons may take objection to these Regulations, but the House of Lords is left out entirely. I have no doubt that

47
your Lordships will insist upon these Regulations being laid before this House as well, and that your Lordships shall have exactly the same power and control over them as the House of Commons. There is a very curious provision at the end of the Bill to the effect that all houses, apparently, are to have bathrooms. That is quite right and proper, and it was done under the Addison scheme. But in this Bill all houses, however small, are to have bathrooms. That may mean the sacrifice of a bedroom and in my opinion that would be unsatisfactory. I do not see how you are going to provide a bathroom in one of these flats which has only from 550 to 850 cubic feet space.
This Bill is the successor of four previous Bills, all of which for one reason or another have been failures, and this Bill is the worst of all, for if it fails it will involve the country in enormous expenditure without any compensating advantages. It is interesting to note that for the first two or three years at least there is to be very little expenditure; the burden is to come on succeeding Parliaments and Governments. But for the first two or three years there will be no increase in house building at all, and it is clear, therefore, that the Bill, which is supposed to be a remedy for the shortage of houses, will not do anything to meet that shortage for at least two or three years.
VISCOUNT INCHCAPE:My Lords, I should like to associate myself with a great deal of what was said by my noble friend, Lord Weir, in his excellent and practical speech this afternoon to which we all listened with great interest. However much I desire to see housing in this country improved, and I certainly think it wants improvement very much, I view with alarm the expenditure to which the country will be committed if this Bill becomes an Act. It can be met only by continuing the present heavy taxation under which our people are groaning or by increasing the taxation, or by borrowing, or by robbing the Sinking Fund. The trade of the country, on which the stability of our finance depends, is extremely dull, wages continue to be forced up, while unemployment shows little sign of decreasing. The outlook generally is by no means rosy. If we get a settlement in Europe things may
48
improve, but with constant demands for higher wages and shorter hours, and strikes to enforce them, it is highly problematical whether we shall be able to hold our own in our foreign trade against the keen competition with which we are faced. I will not go into the technical points in the Bill, but I venture with all due deference to sound a note of warning on the financial side.
THE EAEL OF MIDLETON:My Lords, the Lord Chancellor introduced this measure in a speech which I think he himself will not describe as enthusiastic or full-blooded. He dealt with, certain aspects of the measure, but he did not deal, and I do not think he professed to deal, with the subject-matter of the grave and important speeches we have heard from Lord Weir and Viscount Inchcape. When the Lord Chancellor spoke of this measure from the point of view of sanitation, education and other matters which are common ground to all of us, we might well have asked that he should reconcile these obvious needs, with which we all agree, with the methods adopted to relieve them. What has become of the speech to which we have just listened and the speech delivered with such great effect earlier in the debate? It really comes to this, that housing has been treated, for the special purpose of this Bill, as if it were the only great national need to which the whole of our great resources should be applied. We are to be pledged to an expenditure which has been variously estimated at from £1,500,000,000 to £2,000,000,000 in forty years.
Is housing the only demand we have to make on the country? What about unemployment, for which we may have to make tremendous efforts rather than allow a million of our population to remain permanently unemployed? What about our foreign trade, of which Lord Inchcape has just spoken? What about agriculture, for which we may have to make great sacrifices? I ask the Lord Chancellor to consider whether it is a wise policy to take one serious question, deal with it from one standpoint alone, when it can be dealt with from other standpoints as well, and then say, as the Lord Chancellor says, that in this matter we cannot, with certainty look far ahead. We are all familiar with the views attributed to one

49
Party in the State, that their policy has been for years past—
"… I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me."
If we take this one step we are going a long way towards creating that grave apprehension which has been voiced by one of the greatest business men of the country.
I do not propose to say one word on this subject from a political standpoint, but I do make bold to say that there is no assembly in this country which has a greater right to deal with the question of housing than your Lordships' House. There are no men who have more practical experience of the difficulties of housing, and, I may add, have spent more in order to receive less, so far as money goes, than have the collective body of your Lordships' House as compared with any similar number of men in the country. What is our quarrel with the Government? In the first place, it is that the Bill deals with the matter through only one method. I submit that the key to the whole situation was given us by Lord Weir. The difficulty is that we are 500,000 houses short—I am taking the highest figure; some authorities say that it is not more than 300,000. If you provide 500,000 houses in five years you will have solved the difficulty. The present numbers, which are being constructed without any subsidy from the rates, meet the annual deficiency in houses. But the 500,000 houses have to be provided, and this Bill, unfortunately, does not deal with that problem. It proposes to take fifteen years to do that which we all feel should be done in five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, gave an instance of one class of houses by which this emergency might be met. But that is not the only class. I believe that what he calls the three-roomed house, which I believe is really a four-roomed house, is the best model that has yet been suggested in any quite permanent material, but I have had a great deal of correspondence with a number of persons who have other types of house to suggest. What I would really put to the noble and learned Viscount with all the force that I can command is an appeal that the Government will not shut their ears to the possibility of these other sources of construction. Take wood. The Government of Nova Scotia are ready to produce plans of sec-
50
tions for frame houses to be delivered here, and, like Lord Weir's house, to be put up on the site. Can they get any assistance? They have applied to the Ministry of Health, and had no answer but an acknowledgment. They have asked for a specification, being aware that some of the larger municipalities, like Leicester, have already decided to change their by-laws in order to put up sections of these wooden houses. But no specifications have been received, and this very day I had a letter from the Agent-General asking me whether I could use any influence to obtain for him a specification, so that the Government of Nova Scotia could show what they believe they can do —namely, to produce houses on the site at 25 to 30 per cent, below the cost of the Government house.
I must say, in passing, that after our somewhat insulting treatment of the Dominions recently in the matter of trade, one would have wished, if it were possible, especially at great advantage to ourselves, to give them an opportunity of coming forward and helping in this emergency side by side with the great scheme of the noble Viscount. The same may be said of British Columbia. They have had no opportunity of the kind; and there are others whom I need not mention. What I would press is that we should, without delay, enter into an investigation which surely, on every ground, ought in our present difficulty to have been undertaken many months ago.
I cannot attempt to review the details of the Bill, but there is another point which I think it is really impossible to pass over in this House without a word. This Bill will not only result in stopping, but is intended to stop, all private work in the matter of providing houses. I was very glad that the noble Lord who has just sat down, Lord Strachie, said a word upon the agricultural standpoint. After all, agriculture is still our greatest trade, and there is not a single provision in this Bill which those who are most interested in agriculture believe can have the effect of providing agricultural houses at rents which it is possible for the agricultural labourer to pay. The case of agricultural houses is wholly different from that which is contemplated in the Bill. The Minister of Health thinks of his rows of workmen's dwellings, just as the noble Viscount spoke with great effect of the unfortunate

51
rows of colliery dwellings and others, which require to be very much improved.
But all your Lordships know that, in dealing with agricultural cottages, an expenditure which puts on a single room, or a room to be used as a bathroom, is far more appreciated by the man who is willing to pay his 3s. or 3s. 6d. a week, if it is done in the place where he wants to live, than the prospect of having to walk a mile and to live in a row with a number of others. That kind of work has been brought to an end by the Bill. A noble Lord sitting on this Bench, who knows more about agriculture than I do, told me that in his county the price of bricks has gone up in the last four months, since the Bill was introduced, from 50 s. to £5 a ton. That stops the whole business. How can you ask those who know the improvements of rural cottages that are going on upon estates from week to week and from month to month to arrest them in favour of providing a man, in five or ten years' time, with a house which, when he gets it, he cannot possibly afford to rent? I wonder whether that side of the question has really been considered by the Government.
Then I come to the very serious indictment made by the noble Viscount, Lord Incheape. Your Lordships know that we have to find £200,000,000 worth of food every year, and to do so we must sell products. But taxation and rating, as was shown in the debate in your Lordships' House a fortnight ago, are now heavier by far than in any foreign country, and it is impossible for industries which are already staggering and working at a loss to carry any fresh burden. It is absolutely certain that this Bill must throw an additional burden upon the rates of the towns where it takes effect, and that the burden of taxes must be largely increased. The noble Viscount, Lord Grey of Fallodon, speaking an hour or two ago, reminded your Lordships that, quite apart from this Bill, there has been a great increase in the commitments of the Government, and not a single farthing has been preserved from existing taxation with which to meet them. May we not therefore ask whether it is wise or politic to provide expensive houses for men whom you cannot employ, for mouths that you cannot feed?
May we not reiterate to the Government Lord Weir's inquiry as to what
52
hope they have that the future national production will be able to carry this enormous burden? Lord Weir has put before us an alternative, and we have to ask ourselves what course it is proper to take with regard to the Second Reading of this Bill. I know there are people who will say: "You know that the finance of this Bill is unsound; you have shown it will check private industry; you know the burden is one which cannot be borne and that the houses will not be supplied in time; surely, then, the logical outcome of those arguments is that you should vote against the Second Reading of the Bill?" I think there is another side to that. In the first place, there is grave ignorance among the working classes as to the effects of this Bill. Two days ago I was speaking to a man who would rank as one of the most intellectual men in the country, and when I told him that the cost of this Bill would run to something like £1,500,000,000 he interrupted me and said: "You surely mean £15,000,000?" I do not 'believe there is one man in a hundred in this country who has the smallest idea of what the burden will be.
If this House, by a large majority, were to throw out the Bill, as you might do, or even arrest the progress of the Bill, it might be felt that the very section of society which knows most about the needs of the working classes in this respect, have come down with a heavy hammer to smash a measure which the working classes have been assured by their leaders will bring salvation and relief. Nevertheless, I think we have a grave responsibility, and we are bound to call upon the Government to investigate these alternative methods—to consider, before the Bill is set in operation, whether they cannot combine the emergency action proposed by Lord Weir—to be carried out in whatever may be found to be a conjunction of the best elements for more rapid construction, without calling upon the building trade, now depleted in numbers as has been shown by Lord Strachie—with the carry-on of the measure of last year, so as not to arrest all the progress that can be made in bricks.
I feel so strongly upon this matter that with your Lordships' indulgence I propose, before we go into Committee on the Bill, to move a Resolution inviting the Government to institute such an Inquiry

53
without delay, with a view to obviating what, if it is once set on foot, cannot fail to be an intolerable burden upon our finances, without producing the effect intended. If your Lordships will take that course, we shall have before us an alternative to the present Bill. If you adopt the alternative of the emergency house for the present immediate shortage, instead of crushing trade with additional burdens you will actually stimulate the trades which are suffering most at the moment. Instead of increasing unemployment you will reduce it, and instead of increasing the lamentable chasm between the building trade and other trades in the matter of wages you will diminish it. Wages in the building trade have gone up by 120 per cent, since the war, whereas in the- steel trades and other staple trades wages have gone up by only between 40 and 50 per cent., and it is that very chasm that you are going to increase in depth and width.
If we adopt the alternative, instead of doing that we shall bring these different trades into more correlation with each other, and instead of forcing up the prices of materials we shall give them a chance to come down. Instead of spreading the difficulty over fifteen years we shall meet it in five years, and instead of establishing a State monopoly we shall only have done what the State is meant to do in a moment of emergency—namely, co-operate with private enterprise to the extent that private enterprise falls short. Surely that is not an inconsiderable result to hope to achieve? In his final speech on this measure, the Minister of Health said that all our forces in the country should be directed to bringing down the cost of house building to a reasonable level. That is what we are inviting your Lordships to assist the Government to do, and I hope that as the speeches to-night have been made with no Party object, and with hardly a Party allusion, but only with the desire to meet a great national need as rapidly, efficiently and cheaply as possible, the Government will not refuse our suggestions.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK:My Lords, the noble Earl told us at the commencement of his speech that there were many of those who supported this Bill as if housing was the only great national need. Certainly I am one of
54
those who regard the housing problem as one of the greatest and most difficult problems before the country at the present time. The more I know of the condition of the houses in our great towns, the more appalling and serious I feel it to be. There are literally not thousands but tens of thousands of men, women and children living in conditions where health, decency and happiness are practically impossible. Bad housing is the fertile ground of the agitator, and for one who is converted by the street corner speaker there are scores who are converted into bitterness against order and against the Constitution through the hard housing conditions in which they have to live. It is impossible to carry out satisfactorily any reform, whether it is education or licensing, unless we deal satisfactorily with this housing problem, and although I quite recognise the force of the arguments which have been advanced by those who have criticised the Bill on the financial side, I would venture to .say that this matter is so urgent that we ought to be prepared to take very real and considerable risks, in the endeavour to remove what has been too long a very real scandal to our civilisation.
The measure before the House does attempt to encourage building. I know it will be said, and it has been said, that the 1923 Act would have solved satisfactorily the problem, even if nothing else had been done. The 1923 Act has certainly not justified the gloomy predictions of those who opposed it, but I think it can hardly be said to have fulfilled all the optimistic expectations of those who supported it. No doubt the Act of 1923 has resulted in the building of a considerable number of houses, and at the present, time something like 140,800 houses have either been built, or are being built, or are promised in the future. As a matter of fact, of those only 17,000 in eleven months have actually been built, and, according to the Minister of Health, in Scotland only nineteen have been completed for letting, while in England, out of the 17,000 finished, 7,500 only are available for letting. What has happened has been that in the majority of cases these houses have been sold, at a considerable gain, by the speculative builder, and the average working class man has not had the money to buy these houses, and he does not find them available for occupation by renting. In addition, I would remind the House

55
that there are something like 500 local authorities which have not yet drawn up any scheme under this Act. I think it must be recognised that, whatever the 1023 Act has done, and whatever it may do in the future, it will not solve this problem; certainly it will not solve it in the agricultural districts.
The subsidy which is provided under this measure will, I believe, do something towards the encouragement of building more houses, but, of course, a subsidy is not the root of the difficulty. That is not the centre of the measure. The measure stands or falls by the way in which it provides fresh labour. At the present time it is practically impossible to build the necessary houses unless more labour is provided. A noble Lord opposite has quoted some striking figures, showing how the number of those engaged in the building and allied trades has fallen in recent years. There are 25,000 fewer skilled men than there were in 1920. The numbers are still falling.
I quite understand the attitude that has been taken by the unions in saying that they would not allow any dilution unless they had some kind of guarantee against unemployment. I always hoped that building schemes would be guaranteed for a large number of years, and that, on this condition, the trade unions would allow dilution, and that thus there would be found employment for a large number of ex-Service men and others. Unfortunately, both the builders and the trade unions have refused to accept this suggestion, and so the Minister of Health has apparently adopted the best course possible under the circumstances, and has made some kind of arrangement or bargain with the building trade, by which, without actual dilution, at any rate without dilution in name, a large number of additional apprentices are admitted. Instead of one apprentice to ten men, there will be in future one apprentice to three. If that agreement is carried out, within a very short time there will be a large increase in the number of those who are engaged in the building trades. I must add, however, that I hope that the Government will be able to give us some assurance that the building trades have accepted the Bill as it has been amended in another place. With this additional
56
labour, it ought to be possible to build a large number of new houses.
There are two points of detail in the Bill to which I will shortly refer. I wish that this Bill had dealt more directly with slum clearance. It is true that you cannot clear slums until you have houses into which you can place those who have been turned out of their old dwellings. I wish we could have had a clearance scheme running with this scheme for the building of new houses. I hope that we may have some very definite assurance from the Government that at an early date they will introduce some measure for dealing with the existing slums, in which life is practically intolerable. I am glad to see that in this measure steps have been taken to do something, at any rate, to provide against the building of fresh slums. There is a clause in the Bill which says that, unless the Minister allows an exception to be made, not more than twelve houses to an acre are to be built. When the Act of 1923 was passing through this House I moved an Amendment to that effect, but, unfortunately, the Government could not see their way to accept it; they recognised that that was an ideal, but the practical difficulties, they felt, were too great. What is happening at the present time is that many of the housing schemes which have been carried out in the last ten years in the suburbs of London are turning these places into slum districts, because the houses have been built too closely together. I believe that the clause in this Bill will do much to stop the creation of slums in the future.
My other criticism is this. I wish that the Government had been able to do more to encourage public utility schemes. Under this measure a very, large number of the houses built will be built by the wealthier local bodies, and we shall not have sufficient houses built in the rural districts, or at a distance from the great towns. Something has been done towards encouraging public utility schemes, but the amount granted to them will not be sufficient to enable them to act very effectively. I wish it had been possible to give them greater encouragement. I recognise that the financial difficulties in the way of the Bill are very serious. The carrying out of this Bill means that the country will have to spend a large amount of wealth, but in the spending of that wealth I believe it will secure the

57
greater wealth of the country, which consists in the happiness and prosperity of its citizens.
LORD TREOWEN:My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, in his speech, to which we all listened with great interest, reminded your Lordships that there are in this House many who have special reasons for being interested in the housing problem, and who have experience in connection with it which would have been worthy of being considered by the Government in its dealings with this Bill. I should not venture to address you this evening were it not that I happen to be one of those who have had much to do with housing. I have lived all my life in a country, many of the most beautiful spots of which have been disfigured by the terrible housing conditions created by past generations. I have seen the development and the gradual improvement of the housing in those Welsh valleys, and for the thirty years that I have had any responsibility for it, I have worked with all my soul to try to get these conditions improved. And they were being improved. One of the most terrible and distressing things to me is that by the action of the Government of this year the whole progress of that improvement has been stopped. For one whole year there has been no work done. That means that thousands of families, who might this winter perhaps have been living in decent conditions, will be still in the condition that they were in a year ago.
The Lord Chancellorvery properly said that this was a far-reaching measure. It is far-reaching, though I think that "ambitious" would be a more appropriate expression to use, because one can hardly say whether or not it reaches in the right direction. I would like to utter my protest against the way in which this Bill has been thrown upon your Lordships. In the last days of this Session a problem is brought before us which has puzzled all the wits of those in another place, and has been treated ab initio in an entirely new-fangled fashion, in a way unknown to our Constitution, by the present Minister of Health. On two occasions I tried to get some information from the representatives of the Government here as to the policy of the Government and the lines on which they were going to proceed in this matter; but I failed. It was obvious that the Minister
58
himself did not know how he was going to treat it.
As a result we have seen what I would call the promotion of a Public Bill—a thing unknown to our Constitution. Unofficial Committees were formed and consulted; the representatives of trades were called in and bargained with, and out of that process a Bill emerged which has been changed almost from the first line to the last in the course of its passage through another place. I venture to say that no member of the other House could give a clear account of the measure as it stands now. Yet we are asked to give it full and clear thought while other Bills are pouring in upon us, and during the very last days of the Session. I confess that I was inclined at first to move that if the Bill was read a second time its further consideration should be postponed until the autumn sittings. It seems to me that that would have been a reasonable course to adopt. On consideration, however, I should hesitate to do that from the very fact that, since one of the chief accusations I make against the Government is that they have wasted precious time, I would not like to see another precious moment wasted in dealing with the matter. That is no reason why your Lordships should accept the Bill as it stands. More light has been thrown upon the question this evening by the speeches of two members of your Lordships' House than I have been able to perceive in any of the debates I followed in another place. A new suggestion was made as to how the difficulties could be met.
The Lord Chancellorspoke of the "treaty" which had been made with the building trade. What is that treaty? It is nothing more than the offer of a monopoly to a trade. Is that the way to deal with such a problem as this in a business-like manner? After all, the provision of these 2,500,000 houses is to be spread over a. considerable period. Is that monopoly to stand for ever and are we, therefore, to be debarred from opening up other methods of meeting the demand? The thing is monstrous. Again, the Lord Chancellor spoke of a treaty with the local authorities. What is that treaty? It is another bargain—a bargain for an increased subsidy. I know something of local authorities, and I say that a local authority would not be human if it did not immediately open

59
its mouth and demand a higher subsidy, and you would not get local authorities to agree unless the Government gave it. What is gained by increasing the subsidy under the Act of 1923 from £6 to £9? Increasing the subsidy will not give you houses. The only thing that will give you houses is an assurance that you have the labour and the materials. The giving of £6, or £9, or £12 will not alter that. Will your treaty with the building trade ensure the provision of the labour? Look at the conditions in the building trade to-day!
During the passage of this Bill I hope that your Lordships will do your utmost to limit the liability under which this country will be placed by reason of the excessive expenditure which will be cast upon it. It is a liability which will last for a whole generation, or two generations. In the weighty words uttered by my noble friend Lord Grey earlier in the evening, we have to think of the present liabilities of the country and the means of meeting our future difficulties. The two things cannot be separated, and I would point out that this Bill will lay an enormous burden upon future generations, and we have not the smallest idea, as to how it will work out.
I should like to say a word on one point which was mentioned by the right rev. Prelate and referred to by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor spoke of houses which never reached the working classes. I am speaking of housing conditions in a country where I can honestly say that every house that is built in the crowded areas is immediately occupied by members of the working classes. It is argued on the part of those who believe in these new-fangled theories of social order that a man must not be encouraged to have a house of his own; he must hold it on some form of tenure from a local authority. I could tell your Lordships many touching stories of the anxiety that men have shown to own their own houses and the sacrifices they make for the purpose. If I may be permitted to sound a personal note, the one thing in connection with this matter that I shall never regret is that from the earliest days of my association with it I have tried my best to make it as easy as possible for men to acquire their own houses, and I must say that I have been amply rewarded by the happiness which I have seen as the re-
60
sult of that, and also by the efficiency of the labour which has come about in these particular cases where the men have had the character and the thrift to do this for themselves. Those men do much more for their employers, and also for industry generally.
On the details of this Bill I am not in a position to speak as I should like to do. The Bill only reached my hands this morning. Like many of your Lordships, owing to other responsibilities, I had to be away for the week-end, and consequently the Bill only came into my possession to-day. It is, therefore, impossible for me to go into the details of a Bill which has been so materially changed in the course of its passage through the other House. It is a misfortune that your Lordships' House, to which so many noble Lords come with practical experience and with a fresh mind—which is so important in dealing with a question that has been so much discussed—should not have had the opportunity for a more full and careful consideration of this Bill. When we get into Committee I should urge that we should direct our minds to limiting the liability which is going to be imposed upon the State.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:My Lords, in the lucid speech with which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack introduced this Bill he claimed, while explaining Clause 1, credit for prolonging the Act of 1923 until the year 1939, and it seemed to me as though he were conveying that the Government which introduced that Act contemplated that, the year 1925, or in some cases 1926, marked the period of the necessity for any special legislation to deal with this problem. Before I venture any further observations I would like to remind your Lordships of what I said, what my right hon. friend Mr. Chamberlain said in another place, and what the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Salisbury) said here. We did not say anything of that kind.
I said to your Lordships that the Bill was only a step in the ladder, and one which we trusted would take us some way towards the time when the housing situation would revert to the normal. I said: —
"We are not legislating for a long period, because we do not know—we cannot

61
possibly tell—what the conditions will be in the year 1925."
I merely mention this fact in order to recall it to your Lordships' recollection in case there may be any misunderstanding of the attitude in which we approached the problem in introducing the Bill of last year.
A few days ago my noble friend opposite, Lord De La Warr, in answering a Question that I put to him, informed me that under the Housing Act of last year there were, as the right rev. Prelate, I think, also mentioned, 148,000 houses authorised. Besides that there were 100,000 houses under contract, and, in addition, there were 44,000 houses actually under construction. Of these, I think the noble and learned Viscount told us, the majority are for sale; still there was a considerable proportion, something under 50 per cent. I think, which were to let. In the public Press, and in replies published to Questions which have been put by members of the Opposition in another place, I think it is quite clear that the stimulus which the Act of last year has given to building has absorbed all the available energy of the building trade as it is constituted at the present moment. By that I mean that at present the trade is working up to its full limit, so that neither this Bill, nor any other Bill, can give us a single additional house unless it be done either by accelerating labour, or by providing additional labour and materials.
The noble and learned Viscount said something with which we all agree when he touched upon the evils of bad housing. Every speaker who has followed him has done the same. We all admit the necessity of more houses. The noble and learned Viscount pointed out that bad housing conditions increased tuberculosis and zymotic diseases, and occasioned consequent expense in dealing with those evils. We do not disagree with what the noble and learned Viscount said on that point. But how do the Government propose to get additional houses under this Bill? The Bill does not propose to accelerate the existing rate of work by labour. The noble and learned Viscount tells us that it will produce additional labour, and that is the way in which the houses will get built. The way in which it is proposed to get this additional
62
labour is, he tells us, by giving a guarantee of employment for fifteen years. He laid particular stress upon this question of guarantee. I do not think I am wrong in saying that he emphasised the fact that this treaty, or so-called guarantee, is really the basis of the whole scheme and of the Bill. Without it, both the scheme and the Bill fall to the ground. What is this treaty? Honourable members in another place have asked if there is any written guarantee, or written agreement, with the building trade. I would venture to ask the noble and learned Viscount the same question, and whether he can give us any more specific details about this guarantee and treaty? I should like him to tell us exactly how the treaty has come about, and what the agreement is, because it is the most important thing in the whole matter, for, as I have said, if it falls to the ground the whole scheme falls to the ground.
Then the noble and learned Viscount told us that all the local authorities were in favour of this Bill. I confess that I was astonished to hear him say that, and I was not surprised to hear my noble friend Lord Strachie say that his information on that point was not the same as that of the noble and learned Viscount, and that he had been given to understand that all the local authorities were not in favour of the Bill. I would point out that there is no obligation whatever on any local authority to work the Bill; indeed, the local authorities have expressly, in the correspondence which took place before the Bill was introduced—and it is embodied in the Bill—reserved to themselves full discretion to fix the number of houses they propose to build, and to suspend building at their discretion. I think the only course open, if a local authority fails to carry out the Act, is provided under Clause 9, which contains a somewhat nebulous power. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will give us a few more details in regard to that when he replies. There is really no guarantee that the local authorities will work the Bill. They have reserved to themselves the right not to work it if they do not choose to do so.
But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the local authorities do work the Bill. What guarantee is there that the full fifteen years will be main-

63
tained? There is no guarantee of any kind that the policy which is laid down in the Bill will be maintained for the whole fifteen years. The utmost that you can say that there is any guarantee for in the Bill is continuity for three years. Under Clauses 4 and 5 the Government take power to terminate the whole scheme, to revise the contributions, and generally to alter and change the whole scheme. The Lord Chancellor, in dealing with this clause, showed his great ingenuity and described the powers given to the Government as a stick with which to beat local authorities and make them carry out the obligations they may have undertaken, but the clause goes much further than that. The Government have done wisely to insert the provision, but it would have been better if they had curtailed the revision to two years, or perhaps one year. Be that as it may, the so-called guarantee for fifteen years is, under the Bill, merely a guarantee for three years.
Those are two difficulties which occur to me. Let me assume that they are overcome, that I have over-estimated them, we are still confronted by this difficulty; How are you going to obtain the labour to build these houses? If you turn to the First Schedule you will see that during 1925 and 1926 190,000 houses are to be produced, and according to the Report of the Building Trade Committee that is 110,000 more houses than are being produced at the present moment, or 50,000 houses more each year than are at present produced. These 50,000 houses will, according to this Report, require 34,000 additional craftsmen which the Government will have to find before they can deal in any way with their scheme. How are you going to get these 34,000 additional craftsmen? I listened with great interest to the Minister of Health when dealing with this matter in Committee in another place and from what he said, and from reading the report of the debate, I gather that the Government in the main rely on the production of additional apprentices.
Every one will agree, certainly the Minister of Health will agree, that these apprentices will be of very little value at the outset. In fact, Mr. Wheatley said that the apprentice bricklayer was of very little use for the first twelve months. But in order to accelerate the process the Government have announced a scheme
64
for instruction to be given in bricklaying in technical schools. I have had but a short experience of the Board of Education—the Lord Chancellor has had a lifelong experience—but I know that local authorities have had the greatest objection, and naturally, to using their machinery for teaching purely craft trades. What guarantee has the Government that local education authorities will work this educational scheme and lend their machinery to the Government in order to instruct apprentices in craft trades? And if not how will they get over the difficulty that the apprentices will not be able to learn sufficient of their duties until a considerable time has elapsed?
The next source upon which the Government rely in order to get additional labour is by turning a bricklayer's labourer into a fully-fledged craftsman. They have not been very explicit on this point, and it is difficult to see what they really propose. Perhaps, since the debates took place in the House of Commons, they have more information on the point. I desire to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he can give us any more data in regard to this matter and any estimate of the number of men he considers likely to be supplied from this source. We were told also, in another place, that a large number of men would return from America and elsewhere. The Lord Chancellor has said this evening that some 62,000 skilled craftsmen have gone to America and Canada, attracted, no doubt, by better wages and better conditions. I should like to know whether the Lord Chancellor has any information as to the prospect of the return of these thousands from America and elsewhere. Then the last source from which it is possible to draw in order to get more men employed in building houses is the possibility of a slump in commercial building, but that is not considered to be a source from which to expect anything at the present time.
It is estimated that 34,000 additional men will be required to build these 50,000 houses, but it is possible that less may be required if a reorganisation of the building trade is undertaken. I should like to know whether the Lord Chancellor has any further information as to the reorganisation of the trade which will admit of fewer men being

65
employed in order to obtain greater results. It is very difficult to suppose that the number of men required, even if all these sources of supply materialise, will be tempted into the industry except under some powerful inducement such as a considerable rise in wages. If that rise in wages occurs, how is it possible to finance this Bill? Unless you can build houses for £475, with the subsidy, you are bound to get an increase in rent. The Lord Chancellor has told us that as regards materials agreements have been made with the trade to provide them at reasonable prices, and the Government are introducing a Bill to prevent profiteering in materials. I have not seen the Bill, and I can express no opinion on its merits or whether it is going to stabilise the cost of materials at the present prices or not.
But let us assume that it stabilises the cost of materials; is that going to stabilise the wages of bricklayers, plumbers, joiners and all the other branches of labour employed in the building of a house? If the wages in the building trade are increased, the cost of the houses must be increased, and it will be quite impossible to let the houses at the pre-war rent plus forty per cent. The possibility that rents might be higher is in the mind of the Government, because in some correspondence which took place before the Bill was actually presented for a First Heading, it was stated that the aim of the present scheme is to secure rents in each locality equivalent to the rents now prevailing there for working-class houses built before the war, and that until these rents can be reached local authorities will charge such rents as will be remunerative after allowance has been made for the total subsidy of £13 10 s. for forty years It shows that the Government are not so sanguine that the pre-war rent,plus forty per cent., will be realised.
I should like to ask one other question. The Lord Chancellor told us in regard to agricultural houses, for which an additional subsidy is given, amounting in all to £17, that these houses would be let at 3s. 6d. per week. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount if he could tell us exactly upon what figures that rent is based.
It has been said by several speakers that this Bill has two quite different objects, but that those objects are correlated. One is to attempt to
66
bring men into the industry, to increase the number of houses produced, in order to construct 2,500,000 houses in fifteen years; and the second is to obtain houses to let instead of houses to sell. I would point out one consideration which I think it is necessary to emphasise, in view of what has been said by the noble Lord behind me with regard to the finance of the Bill. The Act of 1923 allowed a subsidy of £75 a house. This Bill proposes a subsidy of £240 a house, that is to say, the subsidy is increased by £165. I do not believe that this increase in the subsidy gives any security whatever that this scheme will produce houses which it will be possible to let at the rents contemplated, nor do I think that there is any guarantee whatever that the scheme will produce the increased labour and increased supply of materials necessary to secure the construction of the number of houses aimed at. What is certain about the Bill—the only thing that is certain—is that every house supplied will cost the country £240 instead of £75, and the total burden on the rates and taxes, if the whole programme is carried out, will be close upon £1,300,000,000. Indeed, I believe it will be even more than that. I made that calculation upon the Memorandum circulated in regard to the Financial Resolution in another place. Since then very considerable modifications have been made in the Bill in another place, and I think that many of them, especially the agricultural Amendment, will entail increased cost to the Exchequer and to the rates. Consequently I venture to think that the total cost, if the whole scheme of the Bill is carried out, will be above rather than below the £1,300,000,000 that I have mentioned.
During the course of this debate we have had the good fortune to listen to something that is a little unusual in debates in Parliament—namely, a concrete suggestion which aims at the erection of a number of new houses rapidly and expeditiously. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Weir, to which I think all of your Lordships listened, as I did, with the greatest possible interest, has, as the French say, given us furiously to think, and I hope that not only the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the Minister of Health but all of your Lordships who are

67
interested in this question will consider very carefully every word that fell from the lips of my noble friend Lord Weir. On the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, the Minister of Health announced that an exhibition of building materials would shortly be held. I hope that one of the most prominent exhibits will be a model of a fully constructed house illustrating my noble friend's suggestion for constructing houses in addition to the efforts of the building trade, and without interfering with that trade. I hope that everybody interested in this matter will give that proposal the most serious consideration possible.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I do not propose to reply in more than a few words, because if I were to do so I should have to take up a great deal of your Lordships' time in dealing with specific questions. It was satisfactory, 1 think, to all of us, independently of our political views, to hear a speech, for the first time in this House, from the noble Lord. Lord Weir. He comes to our debates, not only with a great reputation, but with an amount of technical knowledge which is rare, and it is a real addition to our ranks that we should have him among us. Lord Weir made certain criticisms and certain counter-suggestions. I do not think that he at all disputed the urgency of the housing question—he knows Glasgow too well to do that—but he said that we might haw proceeded in a more modest fashion. I think his suggestion was that we should have begun with 500,000 houses instead of 2,500,000, and that we should have proceeded with our erection of houses on lines of standardisation. But 500,000 houses are wholly inadequate to the problem which we have to undertake. The problem is very vast, and, so far as the standardised methods are concerned, I would point out that under the combined operation of Clauses 4 and 10 of the Bill all the new methods can be adopted, and ought to be adopted, wherever they are feasible. If the noble Lord will apply his immense skill and authority to the production of methods by which houses can be produced more quickly and more cheaply by standardisation, by substituting the work of the factory for the work of the open space, we shall all be delighted, and under Clause 10, this will
68
fit in not only with this scheme but with the duty of the local authority to adopt it.
The noble Lord made other suggestions which were, perhaps, more dubious. He said that the bricklayers ought to work longer hours. Perhaps they ought, but how are you going to make them? The noble Lord knows the difficulties of dealing with workmen as well as any of us, and if you propose to lengthen hours at the present time the probability is that you will have to say good-bye to the provision of houses, either for the working classes or for anybody else, for a long time.
LORD WEIR:I think it would be hardly right that it should go out from this House that I said that bricklayers ought to work longer hours. What I said was that, under the conditions of to-day, it would have been a fine gesture for the building trade to have agreed to work longer hours, pre-war hours, for the five critical years of the housing scheme.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I beg the noble Lord's pardon; apparently I misheard him. Now I understand that he did not express any injunction to the bricklayers, but all he did was to invite them to make a fine gesture. I am afraid that is not a prospect upon which we can rely in solving the pressing problem of housing. The right rev. Prelate, who spoke with such great eloquence upon the condition of things as he knew it, spoke from observation. The question of housing is a pressing one for the country, and to undertake to erect 2,500,000 houses is not to undertake anything which goes in excess of the problem with which we have to deal. I trust that there will be many improvements in the methods of building houses, and I trust that the advice and experience of the noble Lord in devising any such methods will be available. But we cannot rest on possibilities. We have to do the best we can with the materials which we have in the face of a problem of crushing importance.
Other speeches raised other points, but they are points of too great detail to make it desirable that I should attempt to go into them at this hour of the evening. They are points of varying importance, but they are points all of which, I think, were based upon an insufficient realisation of the urgent and pressing character of

69
this question of housing, and the immense social demand which lies behind it. It is all very well for the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, to say: "Why housing? Why not something else?" Housing is upon our backs and housing is confronting us, and, if we do not deal with the housing question, I do not say that you will have a revolution, but you will have a very sharp reminder of the power of the people of this country. Of course the question which we have had to discuss to-night is difficult. Of course we are taking a step into the future, a step which it is essential to take, and we cannot be perfectly certain as to what ground may be covered. So far as I can see, however, after having given the closest study I can to the Bill, I think it offers a reasonable chance of success.
THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY:Is the noble and learned Viscount not going to tell us anything more about the treaty?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I wonder whether the noble Marquess has seen the Report of the joint committee of builders and builders' operatives. If he has, he will find there the details of what was recommended to them, and what was agreed to with the Minister. If the noble Marquess implies that we ought to have indentures written out—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:What I wished to imply was that there was no treaty.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:There was a treaty. Indeed, I am using an expression used by the Minister responsible in another place. It is contained in this Report, and prior to it he got undertakings from them with which he was satisfied, and with which he asked the House and the public to be satisfied. The substance of it is set out in this Report, which will be available to the noble Marquess if he desires to see it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAW OF PROPERTY ACT (POSTPONEMENT) BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL BEAUCHAMP:My Lords, may I be allowed to ask a question? When discussing the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill on the Second Reading on July 24, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, said it was important that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent not later than next Wednesday, which is to-morrow. I am afraid it is hardly possible that that can happen now, but it would be for the general convenience if we heard what the noble and learned Lord had in his mind with regard to procedure
LORD PARMOOR:It is this. I am. afraid that we cannot pass the Bill to-night, because of the Standing Orders. It will be put down to-morrow, and I had intended to ask noble Lords opposite if we might take it as the first Order to-morrow. That would enable it to go early to the other House in order that it may be dealt with.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:I think that that proposal is quite reasonable, and that your Lordships will be disposed to agree with it. Might I, as I am upon my feet, ask the noble Lord what arrangement he contemplates for business in the next few days? As I understand, an arrangement has been made with the Lord Chancellor, by which the first place on Thursday is given to the Indian debate, and I take it that a Notice will be placed on the Paper providing for that. Will the Lord Chancellor tell me what are his intentions as to other business?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I think that on Monday it would be well to take Committee on the Housing Bill. As regards Friday, I think my noble friend Lord Parmoor has a measure for that day.
LORD PARMOOR:I propose to take the Second Reading of the Agricultural Wages Bill on Friday.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:On Friday also there is a Royal Commission at a quarter to four. I think we might sit on that day at twelve, and that would enable us to finish the sitting towards four o'clock.
EARL BUXTON:With regard to the Unemployed Insurance Bill, it will go to-morrow to the House of Commons, and they will have to consider certain Amendments made by your Lordships. Is it likely to come back to us on Thursday?
LORD PABMOOR:I am unwilling to make any statement with regard to that until I know how the Amendments are dealt with in another place. I can only says that it is desired to deal with the measure as quickly as possible, subject, of course, to proper consideration.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (MEASURING INSTRUMENTS) BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILIOOSIS) BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

BARONY OF BEAUCHAMP.
Committee for Privileges met: Claim considered: Resolution agreed to by the Committee; Report thereof to be made to the House.
Speeches of Counsel and Judgment to be printed.

DUKEDOM OF SOMERSET.
Committee for Privileges met: Counsel heard to open the case on behalf of the Claimant: Evidence put in: Witnesses examined: Counsel heard on behalf of the Petitioner Henry Sydney Seymour and also on behalf of the Petitioner, the Marquess of Hertford: The Attorney-General heard on behalf of the Crown: Resolved by the Committee that the Petitioner Henry Sydney Seymour should be allowed until November 1 next, in which to conclude certain researches: Committee adjourned sine die.
BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION WATER BILL.

  THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate
  74
  from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
  Post Office (London) Railway.
  Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
  St. Helens Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation.
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES-HEAD CORPORATIONS (BRIDGE) BILL.
  The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
WEST CHESHIRE WATER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BLACKPOOL ORDER) BILL, [H.L.]
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
To be read 2a to-morrow.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
INDIA.
Adjourned debate on the Motion of Viscount Peel that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the situation in India (which stands appointed for this day), put off to Thursday next.